1.1M views · Apr 25, 2019 · 1:15:54 · 5 HN recommenders · 10 mentions · discussed 2019–2024
Ross Scott of Accursed Farms makes a 76-minute argument that selling video games as a service is a form of consumer fraud. He lays out legal arguments that games are goods, covers ownership and programmed obsolescence, and discusses game preservation.
Why Hacker News points people here: It is the go-to explanation of why games that die when servers shut down harm consumers, and it is repeatedly cited in Stop Killing Games and game-delisting threads.
“Just watch this video so that you get up to speed with what we are talking about”HN comment, 2024
“If you have an hour, I'd highly recommend giving this a watch.”
Long video on games dying at corporate whim.
See "Games as a service is fraud": this video If you have an hour, I'd highly recommend giving this a watch. It is really sad to see any form of media die forever at the whim of a corporation. Games are especially prone to this unfortunately
“Here's a great overview/rant on this topic”
Overview of dead games and server shutdowns.
The problem is that for game ROMs specifically, opening them to the public domain devalues potential opportunities for re-releases and remasters. The Nintendo virtual console service and S/NES classic are prominent examples. So it isn't so simple that there is "no harm done" by forcing game ROMs to fall into public domain. That all being said, I still agree with you. I really don't care how much money Nintendo, Microsoft, or Sony wants to make on decades-old games, at a certain point it becomes a cultural artifact. Snow White and other century-old movie properties should be public domain nowadays as well. At this point we're debating about the core values of trademark law though, and I'm not sure you wanted to do that. A similar debate revolves around what the law should say about "dead" games. These are games that, for example, rely on a central server that has been shut down. Many of these games were incredibly popular in their day, and some "radicals" (like myself, lol) argue that game companies should be compelled to release the server source code in an effort to preserve the game. Here's a great overview/rant on this topic: this video
“Ross from Accursed Farms has some great videos”
Videos on why erasing games harms gaming culture.
Ross from Accursed Farms has some great videos * about exactly this phenomenon and why it is so detrimental to gaming culture in general. * this video
“Ross Scott covers it quite well”
Covers game delistings and shutdowns well.
Ross Scott covers it quite well in his "Games as a service" is fraud video this video and others in 'dead game news' series.
“his opinions on this topic align greatly with my personal sentiment.”
Argument against games as a service.
Some more great information in this same space: link A less legally sound argument for why games as a service shouldn't be allowed: this video Ross is very odd but his opinions on this topic align greatly with my personal sentiment.
“Just watch this video so that you get up to speed with what we are talking about”
Gets viewers up to speed on the initiative's topic.
Just watch this video so that you get up to speed with what we are talking about this video Alternative YouTube link: this video
“Watch this video to understand what we are talking about here”
Explains the issue to those who misunderstand it.
You don’t know what you are talking about and you are wasting everyone’s time. Watch this video to understand what we are talking about here: this video
“there are legal arguments [1] to be made that Steam's games are goods, not services”
Legal argument that games are goods, not services.
Regardless of the EULA, there are legal arguments [1] to be made that Steam's games are goods, not services, and buyers whose games are remotely disabled due to auth servers being shut off should be entitled to either a refund, a reasonable patch to keep the game working locally or have a clear expiration date stamped on the storefront since day one. This recent French court's ruling [2] indirectly supports this interpretation. [1]: this video [2]: link
Source for industry buy-versus-subscribe framing.
> but that doesn’t happen Doesn't happen yet . Entire industries are trying to bypass basic property law so you "own" your purchases in name only and the manufacturer has control de facto . The video game industry has been saying "buy or product" when they really mean "subscribe to our service"[1] for a long time. Bricking old multiplayer gamed had been common practice for years, and now some singleplayer games have been unnecessarily bricked when the publisher e.g. shut down the DRM server. Companies like John Deere have been extending this strategy into their hardware for a while. The damage doesn't even have to be "bricking your device"; HN regularly features stories about forced updates that remove paid-for features. > Have Apple pull something like this and you’ll see on the NYT. Apple got close when their devices suddenly stopped running 3rd party software in the recent "OCSP Apocalypse". [1] this video
“Ross Scott put them in a separate category in a previous video of his [1]”
Earlier video separating subscription games from purchased ones.
As I understand, this would also apply to e.g. micro-transactions/cosmetics which would be categorized as 'possessions' if I follow the wording in this proposal. So this would include F2P games, requiring them to provide a way to enjoy those cosmetics. As for subscription-based games, Ross Scott put them in a separate category in a previous video of his [1], as you willingly pay for access to a service which has a known end date (end of the month). Although with the micro-transactions angle in mind, I'm not sure how this changes things. [1]: "Games as a service" is fraud, this video
