Do you think there is a moral duty for people to push for the preservation of games, if it is within their power? Should it be the bare minimum for a video game to have an end-of-life plan that makes it possible for people to keep playing the game, no matter the genre or whatever requirement was necessary to keep the game running (make the server code available to the public)? How is the 'future' of streaming-only games going to affect our ability to preserve games when streaming goes under?
That is objectively false, they're goods. Goods have a set minimum requirement, mainly that it's -yours- property and the seller can't fuck with or tell you how to use their product, or control what you do, or try to take it away after you've bought it. Imagine if I let you buy a car from me, then after a set amount of time, I come to you and say "I'm shutting down the one thing that allows your vehicle to work, even though you bought it. " Then I rip out the engine and other integral parts that you can't reasonably be expected to repair or replace.
Brayden Phillips
>they're goods. lol no they aren't goods are things that physically exist you haven't owned a single video game in your life all you've had is a license to use it
Chase Anderson
Except that's literally proven wrong in the video. And in several documented court cases. Look at the evidence, retard. If I buy a copy of Halo 3, I own that copy. It's mine.
You own the physical media, like the CD, but you don't "own" the video game, you have a license to play the video game, you're technically not allowed to share it with friends or crack or disassemble it or whatever. Read the terms in conditions. You don't know what you're talking about
Logan Hughes
>goods must be tangible >you never owned a video game laughs in class-action lawsuit
This is like talking to people who believe santa is real
Lincoln Kelly
And that license allows me to own that instance of the game. It's mine. I own it, you fucking retard. I don't own the franchise rights, but I own a license that grants me ownership of that instance of the game. You clearly don't know what the fuck you're talking about. They're classified as goods. If I buy a chair, I own that chair, you can't come into my fucking house and disable it. Games are intangible goods, meaning you can't dictate what I do with it as long as it doesn't infringe on the copyright or the intellectual property.
Cameron Morgan
meanwhile we're talking to people who willingly pull their pants down and let corporations fuck them in the ass and take away their rights god are you burgers fucking retarded
John Taylor
Hoho, hello there johnny! Remember that christmas present? Well, it's not making me any money, so I'm disabling your ability to use the good I sold you! Oy vey, good little goy.
Jayden Roberts
>but I own a license that grants me ownership of that instance of the game. You have (not own, because 'ownership' has a slightly different meaning) a license to play the game. You don't own anything except the physical media it was printed on. "Intangible goods" is not a legal term. They technically can (and have) disable your ability to play the game, and it would be perfectly legal. You could take them to court over it though and win basically because that's extremely unexpected behaviour and nobody really reads the TOS anyway, but if you were say banned for cheating online and they disabled your ability to play then I really doubt you would have any ground to stand on
Literally several countries recognize games and computer software to be intangible goods. You can look it up yourself shill, I'm not going to sit here and spoon-feed you shit you can find for yourself. Being banned for cheating online is not the same as suddenly disabling the game for -EVERYONE- because it's not making the -COMPANY- enough money, because that's fucking over the people who bought the game expecting to be able to play it whenever for as long as they had an internet connection. Australia, The EU, they all define software and computer games as goods. The US is a grey zone but the US also allows companies to make intentionally deficient products to to fuck over the consumer.
Tyler Hill
Valve's EULA not only failed to stand up in Australia, it was used against them. You own the software and digital medial you purchase. Ones you subscribe to, you don't.You subscribe to use that game, whereas I'm purchasing a copy of a game to play whenever I damn well please, I'm not purchasing a game to temporarily own it until the company decides it's time to pull the plug, and supporting that practice is so fucking retarded that it's no wonder why burgers defend it.
Jace Collins
>using a wojak in place of rebuttal as if youre one to talk big guy
Christian Williams
>it would be perfectly legal Except it's not, and it's one of the reasons why games like Rainbow Six: Siege even has an offline tutorial mode, because you can still technically play if you're banned from 90% of the game.
Ayden White
They ARE intangible goods, but intangible goods is not a legal term that means anything >suddenly disabling the game for -EVERYONE- because it's not making the -COMPANY- enough money that's perfectly legal for an online game, you might have a case if it was a game that didn't require a connection, but even then only maybe
Joshua Rodriguez
>burgers its not all of us, just the leftists corp-drones that have infested all media. Neocons get the bullet too.
Isaac Morgan
EULA only matters when legally applicable, it doesn't apply to actual physical copies because for them to revoke the physical copy they would have to have the government raid your house to revoke it which they can't do. You people don't use that argument for anything other than video games. No one implies they own the IP just because they own a copy. I don't own the IP to my car but I do own my car. I don't own the IP to the physical copies I have, but I do own those copies. Gabe must pay people to spread anti physical, pro digital propaganda.
Christopher Butler
You don't own anything. You have a license to use it. The game is intellectual property owned by the developer or publisher. A country may give consumers certain rights when it comes to intellectual property.EULA, but you still do not own anything by the legal definition of own
Valve completely bans people from their games all the time
Carson Fisher
Except in the EU, where it actually is a tangible good. Your shitty country's laws don't apply to the globe, but that doesn't mean your laws aren't fucking stupid, either. They are fucking goods because you're being given ownership of that product, either physically or by a license. You'd have a case if I was arguing subscription-based games, but I'm not.
Jace Murphy
A car is real property not intellectual property its one of the other not both EULA apples to physical copies aswell, just in a completely non-effectual way, like they tell you you cant share it with friends or make copies but it's not like they're ever going to stop you or even try (short of big scale pirate operations)
Aaron Rivera
Intellectual property laws exist in the EU and apply to games
Jacob Turner
No subscription fee, you own it. There are several documents that support this. The seller retains no decision-making ability over a product once they have sold it, to a degree. But most people don't agree to have their game suddenly become absolutely useless because the company wants more fucking money.
Mason Carter
and thanks to the Aussies, you can actually refund the game for extenuating circumstances, or take them to court with it. Which games, by the way, because as far as I know almost all of their games have bots and wouldn't technically be a 100% lockout.
Jaxon Garcia
postan again for your arguing retards youtube.com/watch?v=tUAX0gnZ3Nw idk why you mongoloids keep arguing like you're going to change the persons opinion you can lead a horse to water but you cant make it drink
>Your shitty country's laws don't apply to the globe For early physical games maybe, but even physical copies today require a launcher for whichever marketplace is hosting their servers, and if their marketplace does business with those countries, the same laws have to be followed throughout.
Daniel Nelson
>There are several documents that support this. show me you might have certain rights as to what's expected in your license but that's not "ownership" and you're being a consumer cuck if you think you actually own anything outside of a plastic CD
I know i would not mind if Online only games gave people encrypted use only servers. So they can host there own games. Not like a company would lose money if people made private servers for a dead game.
Landon Campbell
I'm not going to watch a video from an uneducated, entitled "gamer" who knows nothing about the law I'm not even talking about games as a service, I'm talking about ownership, and how you don't really own any digital good
Brody Peterson
Soapbox Raceworld did that with need for speed: world. It's extremely difficult and entirely unreasonable for someone to be expected to do, but that was a F2P game, different case.
Michael Williams
>The video contains several documents, the man did research >You request me to show you something >I-I'M NOT GONNA WATCH HRRGH BELIEVE ME YOU DONT OWN ANYTHING!!!! Get the fuck out corporate shill, I hope you finally hang yourself with your wacky tie friday bullshit.
I'm going through the documents myself, and as far as I've read, most cases were dealt with in many different countries, with NA being the least effective case. Calling each other retards, and telling them to WATCH THE VID/IGNORE THE VID is fucking pointless. Best case scenario, the death of Steam Flash Sales because of Australian entitled commerce laws is a starting point for what buying a video game should actually be ensured upon purchase, rather than what companies want you to believe and not question in higher courts.
Logan Jenkins
If I were a corporate shill I would be encouraging your delusion that you actually own any of your games Maybe you feel you should, but you don't, even before digital distribution the EULA was included in the leaflet in the game box Intellectual property law exists
Gabriel Hernandez
>shown evidence going against his claims >refuses to acknowledge it >BUT YOU SHOULD FUCKING BELIEVE ME God, you're genuinely fucking retarded, why don't you prove to me I don't own any of the games? Tell me, clear as day, as an aussie, I don't own the digital product I purchased, and I'll fucking laugh at you because I do, and my government protects that right. Funny how the freedom burger isn't as free as he thought!
Michael Jackson
>why don't you prove to me I don't own any of the games? Read the EULA of any game you have bought That's it Your country may have certain consumer protection laws, but that does not mean you own it, you have a license to use it, but you can tell yourself that you own it if that helps you sleep at night and I'm not American
Christopher Richardson
You keep saying "EULA", but all I can hear is "settle out of court". EULA is the law of the company, not the land.
Aiden Allen
...Except that I am buying a perpetual license that entitles me to own that copy of the game. That can't be revoked unless I willingly give it up.
Justin Cook
EULA isn't law, it's a contract stop embarrassing yourself
you are buying a license that entitles you to play (not own) that game under certain conditions
Ryder Barnes
>I've met zoomers that unironically think this way
Can you cite that for me please? I gave you a video packed full of documents for you to look over and refuse to do so, so I don't have high hopes for your ability to prove me wrong beyond "LMAO DO IT URSELF XDDDD MMM YES MR SCHLONGBERG PLS FUCK MY WIFE I NEED THAT BONUS"
Ayden Stewart
and every civilized country has laws that prevent predatory contract negotiations. it doesnt mattter if the EULA says "hey we still own this game you bought" because in reality they fucking don't, you do. The EULA could say "we also own rights to your first born child" but it doesn't fucking matter because they can't legally collect on that.
Ayden Reed
I own the instance of that product, I can dissect and modify if I wish, I don't own the game nor the IP, I'm not allowed to sell the game, but I can sell the instance that was sold to me. EULA is fucking stupid, a judge can call bullshit and tell the company to suck a big dick and respect the users.
John Collins
>Do you think there is a moral duty for people to push for the preservation of games, if it is within their power ? >to push yes >to force no
>Should it be the bare minimum for a video game to have an end-of-life plan that makes it possible for people to keep playing the game, no matter the genre or whatever requirement was necessary to keep the game running (make the server code available to the public) ? I'd say yes video games are virtual by essence, and as for any type of virtual product, the higher the number of replicas, the more resistant to the test of time it is (and something should stand the test of time just for historical purposes) you can always make it legal to run private server of an mmo for a game shutdown (i think it's already legal in some cases) by the publisher and illegal if the right holder is hosting official servers (of reasonable quality)
>How is the 'future' of streaming-only games going to affect our ability to preserve games when streaming goes under ? it's bad, you don't even have the compiled code i just hope it result in a disaster of google and other companies
>pic unrelated pic unrelated
also stop responding to this very special individual he has problem of his own, leave him alone
>EULA isn't law That's all you needed to say, you pedantic faggot. Contracts have even less credibility in court when they're fucking fraudulent.
Andrew Roberts
So if the government says when you rent a car you own, but in reality you are still renting it because that is what you paid for and only get the rights and benefits of a renter, you own it just because the government says you do even though you don't actually own it or get any additional benefits? It is honestly impressive that one grotesque fat kike was able to brainwash you people this much.
Wyatt Butler
I told you to read the EULA for any game you have. Nobody "owns a copy" of a game. That's consumer talk. You can ctrl+c ctrl+v and make a new copy any time you want. That's why intellectual property law exists in the first place. The information age means information can be reproduced endlessly at no cost. So what do we do about that? We have IP law where the creator is the person who owns the game and they grant you a limited license to use it.
Isaiah Murphy
this thread got dumb af
I find personal value in games archival and arachaeology, but I also think that games do not differ from other objects which archaeology and archival efforts are historically known to care about. from what I've read, lots of people care about games history and artifacts and are developing models to understand and preserve them.
Bentley Collins
>I own the instance of that product, nope >I can dissect and modify if I wish often you can't actually
Luis King
Yes, I do own what I buy, that's literally the basis of what a good is, and why games are considered to be goods. No, I can't artifically reproduce and sell them to make a profit, but I also can't have my consumer rights infringed upon and the product I payed money for suddenly taken away because the company decided that game wasn't making enough money. The EULA can say they claim the right to my first born child and half of my mortgage, and guess what? Predatory contracts don't hold up in court. And I will gladly take any company to court that decides to deny me access to my games solely because they no longer want to keep it up. That's why I've never bought an online-only game and why I'm arguing that yes, you do own the software you buy, you own that instance, because a future where you only have 4 or so years to enjoy a game is one I don't fucking want.
Evan Russell
>nope Citation? >often you can't actually If it's hosted on a master server, maybe. What game when possible hasn't been horribly gutted by a community of neckbeards?
Jackson James
I'm arguing about facts, not opinions. I don't care if you FEEL like you own it, I'm telling you you don't according to the law. You feelings aren't the law. People with low IQs like you are the reason companies can get away with bad business practices in the first place. Companies have revoked users rights to software all the fucking time, and they've been taken to court for it and won.
Nathan Smith
>uneducated, entitled "gamer" Yeah, this was bait all along.
Josiah Perry
>Citation? Read any EULA you mouthbreather
Andrew Hughes
>often you can't actually Actually I can, I can edit any file or data in my computer, and they can't stop me. >but the EULA The law in my countries allows the modification and study ips.
Justin Williams
It is a proven fact that my government protects my right to own the product I purchased. You just keep going "HRRNRNRN EULA" without showing me any evidence proving me wrong, like you're correct when the fact of the matter is that you're wrong. It's amazing that you're so willing to let yourself get fucked in the ass at every corner. It's really pathetic that you call me "low iq" but you tell me that the GOVERNMENT OF MY FUCKING COUNTRY is wrong without any citations and parade it around like it's a fact. All you've shown are your corporate ties, shill.
Cooper Kelly
First off, you dont own what you rent, you are using it, if you have the title for the car, then you own it. You dont own the brand of car, the company, or have a say or share in the company, but the vehichle is yours to do with however the fuck you want, that specific car is yours. thats why people are able to mod games, they own a version of the game, they are allowed to alter it and to edit it however the fuck they want, always online games and some newer games are trying to limit what you can do with your copy, and thats what you are getting at. But if you had a one time purchase and a reciept of the game, its yours.
Samuel Flores
Like i could eat art. I get in trouble after eating a painting because i thought i could consume it. Now, i look like the dumbass at starbucks while i drink my over-priced poverty-tier coffee.
Jackson Parker
>Gabe must pay people to spread anti physical, pro digital propaganda. Not only him, but every major publisher and digital store as well.
Juan Reed
The government protects your consumer rights towards software licenses you've purchased. You added the "own a product" to fulfill your consumerist fantasy. You can read up on intellectual propertly law if the EULA itself is too difficult for you to understand. Again, if I was a "corporate shill" I wouldn't be trying to break down your consumerist delusions, because people like you are the ones who give companies the most money
Landon Barnes
You know there's a mix between owning an IP and letting the consumer do whatever the fuck he wants with his physical copy, right?
Blake Powell
what?
Colton Edwards
>Americans are so used to corporate cock they literally become irrational and defend multimillion dollar organizations on reflex when they are told they are being fucked Jesus Christ you guys holy shit.
Jose Long
>Read any Ignored, declined.
Nathaniel Parker
I did a Google search and found a typical game EULA store.steampowered.com/eula/eula_39190 You'll notice that it's VERY specific about who owns the game (not you) and that it's merely a limited use license for you to use the game in the ways they want you to >The Game Software is licensed to you, not sold. This License does not give you any title or ownership in the Game Software, and should not be construed as a sale or transfer of any intellectual property or other rights to the Game Software.
Colton Fisher
Does a nigga have to nig this shit down for a a nigga, nigga?
Justin Long
I don't the fucking IP and the company doesn't lose their fucking trademark. That's not what I'm arguing. I don't own a share in the company. BUT, what I -DO- own is the fucking perpetual license that grants me ownership OF THAT SPECIFIC INSTANCE. That's the entire fucking point, the buyers have rights, too.
Thomas Roberts
Games desperately need their version of the Criterion Collection.
Easton Bennett
Infinite keks
Connor Rogers
You dont "own an instance" because what is it an instance? The game data can be copied infinitely. You don't own a license, you are granted a license, but you can keep telling yourself that you own a license and redefine the word own so you feel like you own something but by any legal, objective definition of the word own, you don't >The Game Software is licensed to you, not sold. This License does not give you any title or ownership in the Game Software
Angel James
For some reason you think that if a company owns an IP, they must be entitled to screw the consumers with EULAs.
Brayden Green
The instance is the software I purchased and have downloaded onto my machine. That is my property, and intellectually bricking it and making me unable to utilize the software I bought by shutting down the servers that allow it to function as it was sold to me is a bad practice. >Perpetual License >Believes I'm actually buying the rights to the game for 60 dollars That's telling me I can't reverse-engineer the game and then sell it, I can't modify the game's source code/software and present it as my own, like how I could alter a chair and then sell it as my own. But that LICENSE protects me from being fucked over when the company decides to break the game, which you fail to understand.
Jonathan Green
Again, believing this holds any water in modern courts is fucking retarded, because the law will always supersede contracts. They can do whatever they feel like doing to you (abuse you, silence you, ban you, revoke your game even), but the moment it conflicts with any of the commercial laws is when it gets dropped. It's a facade and people will keep falling for it, because people keep denying it, despite the majority of cases being in favor of the consumer. Holy shit I'm done with EULA posters, going to start talking about streaming services. I think we're fucked.
Luke White
I don't think streaming will work right now, but, it will, maybe when internet becomes fast enough to play games without input lag.
Owen Watson
I pray to god it doesn't pick up, I have pretty poor internet and I can't play most modern multiplayer games because my download speed is capped at 1.15 Mbp/s on a good day. All I can really play are smaller games online, and RTS games. If games move to being streamed, I'm fucked.
You fail to understand anything. You think your feelings are the law. The license doesn't protect you from anything. It grants you use of the software. Nothing about the license says it has to be perpetual either. You added that part because that's what you feel it should be. An instance of software means nothing. Downloading software means nothing. Software is not a tangible thing because it can be reproduced endlessly. You downloaded it, it's still on the servers from where you downloaded it and you can download it again as many times as it'll let you
Caleb Phillips
Of course you are correct, contracts aren't the law, but the law upholds contracts where the contracts are legal, and most parts of most game EULAs are legal even though people might not want them to be
Nolan Ortiz
>own a copy of a game >create a backup for myself incase of emergencies >mfw corporate bootlickers cry and whine because they can't do a thing about it
>keeps citing feelings >meanwhile continues to use EULA as an argument like the companies have more power over the government mmkay you're either baiting hard fucking core or so addicted to corporate cock that you just scream "EULA IS LAW" like a good little goy. This thread is about streaming games now. I remain optimistic, but the fact we'd never be able to preserve them is very very bad.
Ian Gonzalez
EULA is alot closer to the law than your feelings are
Nicholas Martin
and most EULAs usually stop where it would begin to deny access to the game. Since multiplayer games are the new norm, a tacked on single player or bot mode is used to subvert permanent bans. Luckily this is more of a sudden death/planned obsolescence thread, and not a "I SAID NIGGER" thread.
Lucas Clark
>a tacked on single player or bot mode is used to subvert permanent bans afaik Valve bans people outright for cheating and removes their Steam account, games and all
Jeremiah Rogers
Friendly reminder that Afterburner Climax is no longer lost. SEGA made the mobile port a free download as part of their SEGA Forever line, with an adless version for $2.
It's not as good as the console version but it has a 4th plane, and the fact that they have the plane rights is a good sign for the future
No they don't, you won't be able to play VAC secured servers, the only way to lose an account is by using stole CC, but they prefer to remove the game from your library. One guy even inject a game into the store, and Valve, was like, okay.
Robert James
I only ever saw two instances of that: one being the guy who kept griefing with a dev present, and another guy who just kept reposting a steam warning. Were either of them ever confirmed? Known cheaters caught with VAC have their accounts flagged for all to see, and can no longer connect to VAC enabled servers, but they can still play and connect to other servers.
Jonathan Sanchez
VAC bans only affect the game you were cheating in.
Xavier Brown
>One guy even inject a game into the store Gonna need to google/ask for spoonfeed on that, because that sounds great.
Kevin Morgan
dota 2 VAC ban means you cant even play the game, period
Jason Nguyen
Was during the greenlight, a security engineer warned Valve about a loophole in the system where you could inject a game direct to the store without Valve knowing about it, Valve didn't gave a shit, and the guy just put Watch Paint Dry in the front store. After that, Valve joined a bug bounty site.
>Pick up SA again after nearly 12 years of not playing/modding >think there will be mods that completely turn the game around >go through a ton of mods and ultimately stick with just 10 of them that just essentially make the game even playable on modern equipment Older games has such potential but no one wants to bother.
