Honestly, the answer is pretty simple. If you don't agree with the Games as Service model, don't give the AAA industry any money, and vote with your wallet. Only buy games that still have physical copies that you can always own. And then don't complain that patches only exist online and might get lost, back them up yourself. Kinda moot point to complain after the fact that a game that has an online component shockingly won't work without it.
Elite Dangerous is not a Game you own, its a Service
- Thread starter DoppelGanger
- Start date
There is no fallacy, commercial software has been treated as goods since the beginning. The lawful limitations on making and redistributing copies is a direct result of that treatment. It means when you have two computers and want to run two copies of the software on those two computers, you have to purchase two copies instead of just one.
Now we see the development, that publishers don't want to give up control anymore. But this directly contradicts selling copies of the software.
Selling something means giving up control and handing it over: like a copy of the software to run on your computer (not IP rights themselves). Consumers being put in belief that they are purchasing something (a copy to run on your computer), while in fact they don't get anything handed over for their money, is the reason why in the OP the term "fraud" came up. In the EU it doesn't matter if the copy is a physical or just a digital download token.
It doesn't matter all whatever ToS you agree on afterwards, after purchasing a copy to run on your computer. As a consumer you can't waive your rights from the purchase contract. Even if the publishers cancels all "services", you are still entitled to run the purchased copy of the software on your computer indefinetely or resell it.
Last edited:
Voting with your wallet doesn't actually work, because companies with predatory business models always win against companies with fair business practices. When playing foul leads higher revenue, the market enforces playing foul.
What works is voting at the booth and getting legislation in place banning predatory business models for everyone. Then the playing field is even again and everyone has to stick to the same consumer-friendly rules.
No. It has always been treated as something the user licenses. It used (a long time back) to fall into a bit of an ambiguous area because it wasn't really clear how to treat it, and the genpop didn't read licence agreements.
Yes, because:
That's why the term "licence" is used. You buy a licence to use a copy of the software, following contractual terms laid out in the license agreement. Please do yourself the favour of reading some of that stuff (once you've seen one you've pretty much seen them all as far as actual use of the software is concerned).
You are aware that you are calling for a ban of any form of "curated online services", right? All of the major "predation" is plainly laid out in every single boilerplate licence agreement. There's nothing "fraudulent" or deceiving about it, they tell you straight to your face what you're getting into. And you nod, click "I accept", and only then complain; congratulations, your wallet just voted your rights away. Again, you are always free to challenge that through legal means, but it was you who signed a name on the dotted line. So when you go to court and are asked if you were aware that you agreed to a developer changing the product in any way, or cancelling it at any time, or changing terms of its use, you better have a damn good excuse.
A license is a grant to commercially exploit an IP. Nobody purchasing a copy of a book gets a license to use the text. You get a book, nothing more. Book gets destroyed, you have to repurchase another one. Software is nothing different.
Star Citizen got a license to use CryEngine for one game (not two), Frontier Developments got a license to use the Jurassic Park IP in one of their games. That's an actual license in the legal sense. A license has a termination clause, including a date when it expires.
You for sure don't have a single license for anything, even if you believe otherwise.
I'm only reading the law, because all the other stuff is entirely irrelevant end customers located in the EU. Any terms that come up after purchase of the software do not matter the slightest.
Selling services disguised as goods are not legal, because it harms the honest sellers selling actual digital goods with perpetual use. It's already banned, the ban just needs to be enforced.
Your basing all your logic on the EULA being the end all be all. The commerce laws in country in which the goods/software were sold supercede the EULA if the consumer's rights were violated. Whatever agreement the consumer agreed to becomes null and void after that point. End of story.
According to the research provided in the video there has not been any highe court ruling on this yet so yes it is still a "grey" area. If there was and in favor of the consumer, well there would be a lot of corperate tears.
According to the research provided in the video there has not been any highe court ruling on this yet so yes it is still a "grey" area. If there was and in favor of the consumer, well there would be a lot of corperate tears.
Last edited:
Yeah this has (naturally, i did not need to think on it much) become my default over the last 5 or so years in particular.
ED did get my money, but then i backed it from the start via the Kickstarter, however i have yet to start playing it as i find it's current state (online only, unable to be modded or 'fixed/tweaked' by myself) not worth my investment of time. I have pleanty of games to play.
Interesting points about goods vs service.
They got your money (ahead of time), that's all what matters.
Well to be fair i have also enjoyed the 'Elite' experience since the 1980's, so giving David money up front (for something i yet feel the desire to play) for ED was more a 'thank you' and a hope it would turn out like i wished it would (and it still could, perhaps?). £80 (at the time of the Kickstarter) while the most i've ever paid for a single game, is also small change in the grand scheme of things in relation to Elite and my lifetime as a gamer?
To put it another way, I don't regret it, while i also am saddened at how it has turned out for the most part. And if my £80 contribution helped in any small way so the others that have and do enjoy ED still, then that is all to the good.
To put it another way, I don't regret it, while i also am saddened at how it has turned out for the most part. And if my £80 contribution helped in any small way so the others that have and do enjoy ED still, then that is all to the good.
Last edited:
The "profitability" issue is the reason FD went down the peer-to-peer route architecturally, rather than central servers directly managing all player activity.
The former involves a "transactional" kind of data flow on Frontier's end. Many compromises in terms of end-user experience, but a far less expensive environment to run.
All the P2P oddities and limitations we face are direct consequences of a design decision taken for a single reason - cost-effective long-term viability.
Of course, if FD themselves cease to be a going concern, Elite will no longer be able to exist in its current form. Frontier going broke doesn't look like a short or medium term risk, though.
The former involves a "transactional" kind of data flow on Frontier's end. Many compromises in terms of end-user experience, but a far less expensive environment to run.
All the P2P oddities and limitations we face are direct consequences of a design decision taken for a single reason - cost-effective long-term viability.
Of course, if FD themselves cease to be a going concern, Elite will no longer be able to exist in its current form. Frontier going broke doesn't look like a short or medium term risk, though.