Game publishers push back as "Stop Killing Games" campaign surges past 1 million signatures

[lonetac]

- It's perfectly achievable and totally realistic. You seem to be arguing against something no one is actually asking for. No one expects a fully online MMO to just remain fully online and totally playable in perpetuity. The expectation is that there should still be some way to access and engage with the game's content. This is trivially simple.

You also make assumptions and assert opinions. We should be welcoming of both of ours. Yours is no more right than mine.

And yes, depending on the complexity of the game or what the game is, requiring a dev to make their game available after support if it is an online game could impact indie devs.

It will stifle companies from making games with online activity.

What is the answer? Im not sure but there should be exceptions for some types of games. I think its unreasonable to expect WoW or Blizzard to offer WoW after they close shop. You can disagree, it doesnt mean I am wrong. Especially for free. I am guessing you are still expected to buy the game that is no longer supported if you want to play it, right?

Perhaps its just too sweeping and broad. If I recall the breakdown of this that I saw, Ill come back and share it with you. But even in this thread, folks have said things that their own FAQ proves otherwise. Folks are not understanding the ramifications of this entirely. Its worth discussing.

Its not as simple as "all games must be made available after support ends". Nothing is that black and white or as easy as you paint it. I believe you used the word "Trivial". I would challenge how you could know that for every game made.

 

[brucek]

When a music artist stops making music, does their music stop earning royalties? Does everyone now get to play it wherever without fear of legal repercussion?

To date there is no known ability for a music publisher to stop a previously sold vinyl record, 8 track cassette, CD-ROM, etc. from continuing to play (nor archival copies made thereof.)

Should a unilateral kill switch ever be made that could accomplish that, I guess that's a new discussion we'll have to sort through. But yes, I'd argue under that circumstance it would be reasonable for copyright protection to end, as it was the artist themselves had made the unilateral determination that it was no longer an economically viable product.

And there's nothing wrong with opinions, I just wanted to establish clear separation on the two different statements I wished to respond to even though they were in the same sentence.

 

[lonetac]

To date there is no known ability for a music publisher to stop a previously sold vinyl record, 8 track cassette, CD-ROM, etc. from continuing to play (nor archival copies made thereof.)

Should a unilateral kill switch ever be made that could accomplish that, I guess that's a new discussion we'll have to sort through. But yes, I'd argue under that circumstance it would be reasonable for copyright protection to end, as it was the artist themselves had made the unilateral determination that it was no longer an economically viable product.

And there's nothing wrong with opinions, I just wanted to establish clear separation on the two different statements I wished to respond to even though they were in the same sentence.

Your first sentence, I guess thats fair. However if its used for any purpose other than its licensed for, you would face ramifications. Such as using it at a political event or in a game, or a movie. Heck, you cant even have it on your stream unless you have paid Royalties or for rights to use it.

Online games are a unique media. I could see why they would be treated differently.

 

[brucek]

I think its unreasonable to expect WoW or Blizzard to offer WoW after they close shop. You can disagree, it doesnt mean I am wrong.

You keep shifting the responsibility for ongoing preservation back to the first party, which is not what is being proposed. Of course a, for example, bankrupt or deceased entity can not continue providing live hosting and other support for an old title.That is why the reasonable requirement would be that once the original first party had determined it had no interest in continuing to do so, that other parties be enabled to continue in its place.

I will acknowledge a potential hardship on games caught in the middle of this transition. While new games going forward would be created with the requirement in mind, pre-existing titles may have lacked any such planning or design. I think it'd be fair to grant the publisher of any such pre-existing work a hardship exemption on request where they could fully meet their responsibilities simply by publishing the server source code as it was at time of market abandonment, or, _maybe_, simply voluntarily abandoning any claims to protecting any aspect of letting users reverse-engineer and host one themselves.

 

[lonetac]

You keep shifting the responsibility for ongoing preservation back to the first party, which is not what is being proposed. Of course a, for example, bankrupt or deceased entity can not continue providing live hosting and other support for an old title.That is why the reasonable requirement would be that once the original first party had determined it had no interest in continuing to do so, that other parties be enabled to continue in its place.

I will acknowledge a potential hardship on games caught in the middle of this transition. While new games going forward would be created with the requirement in mind, pre-existing titles may have lacked any such planning or design. I think it'd be fair to grant the publisher of any such pre-existing work a hardship exemption on request where they could fully meet their responsibilities simply by publishing the server source code as it was at time of market abandonment, or, _maybe_, simply voluntarily abandoning any claims to protecting any aspect of letting users reverse-engineer and host one themselves.

What I mean specifically, I dont see why Blizzard should be forced to release their code for a game they stop supporting. It could be used in other games or copied by other companies and used. The code is something they created and is proprietary. That could open up a wall of abuse for other games using that code or parts of it.

But lets talk about that for a minute. Private entities running MMO's.

I acknowledge EQ has one running, Ive played my fair share there but I promise as soon as they charge a sub fee, daybreak would shut it down. There are also WoW clones, I recall seeing one where you can be any class or something so obv some of these already exist without this law. And they require dev teams to keep going and maintain. Isnt there one for DAoC too?

We might just have to agree to disagree. I think their needs to be some nuance added to what it means for certain types of games. I feel you dont necessarily disagree in your new vs old game analysis. I dont want to see good games not see the light of day because of arbitrary laws put in place to limit creativity.

 

[brucek]

What I mean specifically, I dont see why Blizzard should be forced to release their code for a game they stop supporting. It could be used in other games or copied by other companies and used. The code is something they created and is proprietary.

What we are trying to balance here are the rights of both Blizzard, and its customers. Your position certainly accounts for Blizzard's rights. It does not seem to in any way account for the rights of all the people who purchased Blizzard's games and funded the development of that code.

While there may be no perfect way to split the baby, legal and copyright precedent offers us some guidelines. In commercial legal disputes, grey areas are often in resolved in favor of the less-responsible party, meaning the one that did not make the precipitating decision, or draft the legal documents, or was better positioned to have foreseen or prevented the problem, etc. In this example, since Blizzard is the more responsible party in all three senses, it does not seem at all fair to resolve the aftermath entirely in Blizzard's favor with the customers getting nothing.

On the copyright front I'll refer back to the original point I made, it's not a property right, it's explicitly a balance and any public policy that twists copyright into a tool with the long term effect of removing works from the public domain vs. adding them does not fit the intent or precedent.

 

[brucek]

I dont see why Blizzard should be forced to release their code for a game they stop supporting.

Just to be clear, I also agree that should not be the *only* way that a publisher could meet its responsibilities to its customers. I offered it merely as an alternative for a bankrupt or other entity that could not spend even one penny more on other options.

I imagine that under my scenario, more companies would elect to include single player offline modes, and/or server binaries supporting network play, especially in titles designed & planned after the new rules were in place.

It could be used in other games or copied by other companies and used.

In which case there is an ongoing revenue stream and little justification for allowing one side of the transaction to abandon its responsibilities to the other side.

 

[lonetac]

What we are trying to balance here are the rights of both Blizzard, and its customers. Your position certainly accounts for Blizzard's rights. It does not seem to in any way account for the rights of all the people who purchased Blizzard's games and funded the development of that code.

I dont think this is a logical argument. Does the customers and public get any rights to any companies investments of what they do? That doesnt seem how things work. Your rights to use the product are that its an online game and while online it can be played. Expecting more is on the user for not understanding how online things work. Perhaps folks need to learn what ONLINE only means? You want the new features of an Iphone due to everyone buying the last one, you have to pay for it.

When any online service goes offline, the customers dont get anything. You are not entitled to anything. You are a consumer of their product.

If I start a corporation and you buy my product and I develop and improve that product to a point and then go out of business, you dont have any stake in those developments, copyrights or development.

Im not even saying I necessarily agree but thats how the world works right now.

While there may be no perfect way to split the baby, legal and copyright precedent offers us some guidelines. In commercial legal disputes, grey areas are often in resolved in favor of the less-responsible party, meaning the one that did not make the precipitating decision, or draft the legal documents, or was better positioned to have foreseen or prevented the problem, etc. In this example, since Blizzard is the more responsible party in all three senses, it does not seem at all fair to resolve the aftermath entirely in Blizzard's favor with the customers getting nothing.

The customers got to play the game while it was supported and hosted online by the company.

Again, there are already people running 3rd party servers of these games despite the law not existing.

I will reiterate, I disagree that when WoW goes offline, folks should be able to have access to their code and do what they want with it. This movement should address different controls for different types of games.

I dont want games to not see the light of day due to laws regulating that after they are done it has to remain usable by the user base if its an online game.

Ive also personally never lost access to a game I purchased in 30+ years of digital buying outside of MMO's.

 

[lonetac]

Just to be clear, I also agree that should not be the *only* way that a publisher could meet its responsibilities to its customers. I offered it merely as an alternative for a bankrupt or other entity that could not spend even one penny more on other options.

And this is why I disagree with the movement here because it doesnt address this.

It makes broad sweeping generalizations about every game.

Black and white laws are extremely flawed. Its actually a big issue I have with most laws.

 

[GhostLegion]

Thats simply not true and I dont think companies should be forced to do that for online games. There is a lot of overhead running servers like that and propietary code, settings, copyright, people making profit, etc.


Especially governments mandating how a game should be developed. How any of you are ok with that is odd to me.

The all games need to be in a functional state just isnt feasible and is a terrible idea for the gaming industry. It will curtail creativity and bloat budgets even more.

Ya'all freaking the f out about a $70 switch title, that could easily double.

While there is a problem in the industry, this movement doesnt address it appropriately or in a legally fair way to developers.

What we ask for is a return to the past. Single player games are unaffected but for a removal of online requirement when publishers/developers no longer maintain the title. Older multiplayer titles still have dedicated user bases that play using private servers. Obviously there isn’t enough money to turn a profit on these private servers or else devs would keep the official ones running, no?

 

[GodisanAtheist]

You also make assumptions and assert opinions. We should be welcoming of both of ours. Yours is no more right than mine.

And yes, depending on the complexity of the game or what the game is, requiring a dev to make their game available after support if it is an online game could impact indie devs.

- I think it's worth defining what the bolded above seems to mean. "Make the game available" doesn't mean the dev/publisher have forced to keep selling the game or providing patches/support/servers/etc.

They simply have to bring the game into a playable state for those who already own the game/license for the game. The game can still be delisted from storefronts so no new copies of the game can be sold, but anyone who has already purchased the game should still be able to launch it and interact with the game systems. This can mean running around as the only player in a PvE only instance of WoW for example that is hosted locally on your own machine.

It will stifle companies from making games with online activity.

-Why? They were going to deactivate and delist the game anyway, why does allowing the end user to access and play a "dead" game prevent companies from making online games?

What is the answer? Im not sure but there should be exceptions for some types of games. I think its unreasonable to expect WoW or Blizzard to offer WoW after they close shop. You can disagree, it doesnt mean I am wrong. Especially for free. I am guessing you are still expected to buy the game that is no longer supported if you want to play it, right?

- No one is asking Blizzard to "offer" WoW after they close shop. But if Blizzard wants to move people to their hot new MMO and deactivate WoW then folks that purchased WoW already should still be able to log in and play the game. Ideally on a private server, but certainly alone vs the environment on a locally hosted instance.

Perhaps its just too sweeping and broad. If I recall the breakdown of this that I saw, Ill come back and share it with you. But even in this thread, folks have said things that their own FAQ proves otherwise. Folks are not understanding the ramifications of this entirely. Its worth discussing.

Its not as simple as "all games must be made available after support ends". Nothing is that black and white or as easy as you paint it. I believe you used the word "Trivial". I would challenge how you could know that for every game made.

- Again there seems to be a disconnect in terms of what "made available after support ends" seems to mean.

The vast majority of games already function within the bounds of what is being proposed, the developer simply cannot prevent a game from being played by deactivating a server (effectively a kill switch for a game, hence stop killing games).

There are a relatively limited number of games that are utterly dependent on their online connectivity for gameplay purposes, but all of their assets are stored locally (MMORPGS do not stream gigabytes of asset data to client machines, that is all run locally). Simply allow players to access the assets and engage with the game, even with the multiplayer elements taken out.

 

[brucek]

I paid $60 for each of numerous WoW expansions. Every one of those transactions were preceded by Blizzard making claims about the product it was selling me. I should have legal rights to prevent them from keeping the $60 while unilaterally clawing back the product and thus rendering all its previous claims false.

Your argument does illustrate that publishers will and probably should avoid this situation by charging subscription fees only and marketing their products accordingly. At that point I'd be a lot less inclined to place any proactive responsibilities on them outside of that subscription period, although my feelings on the nature of the copyright tradeoff remain the same, and that therefore copyright protections, anti-DRM-circumvention laws, etc. should expire on or soon after the date the work would otherwise be completely lost to the public.

 

[GhostLegion]

The movement is after online only games as well. I dont care what the article says, go to the FAQ from the Stop Killing Games website and understand what its calling for actually. Please educate yourself before saying things like this. So many folks are being mislead.

Stop Killing Games

www.stopkillinggames.com

How about you read the fourth question in the FAQ yourself? It plainly states the same as what I said.

 

[GhostLegion]

You also assert an opinion. Its great we both have one.

When a music artist stops making music, does their music stop earning royalties? Does everyone now get to play it wherever without fear of legal repercussion?

You are comparing music, which remains the same after the artist dies and requires no ongoing support from the artist, with online video games. That is comparing apples to oranges. And yes, after an artist dies and a suitable period of time, they lose royalty rights. That’s why don’t pay royalties to the estates of mssrs Bach and Beethoven among others.

 

[GhostLegion]

I dont think this is a logical argument. Does the customers and public get any rights to any companies investments of what they do? That doesnt seem how things work. Your rights to use the product are that its an online game and while online it can be played. Expecting more is on the user for not understanding how online things work. Perhaps folks need to learn what ONLINE only means? You want the new features of an Iphone due to everyone buying the last one, you have to pay for it.

When any online service goes offline, the customers dont get anything. You are not entitled to anything. You are a consumer of their product.

If I start a corporation and you buy my product and I develop and improve that product to a point and then go out of business, you dont have any stake in those developments, copyrights or development.

Im not even saying I necessarily agree but thats how the world works right now.


The customers got to play the game while it was supported and hosted online by the company.

Again, there are already people running 3rd party servers of these games despite the law not existing.

I will reiterate, I disagree that when WoW goes offline, folks should be able to have access to their code and do what they want with it. This movement should address different controls for different types of games.

I dont want games to not see the light of day due to laws regulating that after they are done it has to remain usable by the user base if its an online game.

Ive also personally never lost access to a game I purchased in 30+ years of digital buying outside of MMO's.

While it’s great that you have never lost access to a game, many others demonstrably have and not just to games but also movies, music, books and other media. The verbiage used to market these titles has meaning. You said that you “purchased” games but you haven’t purchased anything. You licensed it. There is a legal distinction and if publishers are going to “sell” games then the game must be truly sold and the use of the game must be non-revocable.

Instead of planting a flag in the sand and being obstinate, a better plan for publishers is to acknowledge valid consumer complaints and provide a path forward that best protects their IP while addressing consumer rights. Open sourcing the code may be a bridge too far but if the ability to create private servers is already a feature in the game then that would satisfy most consumers.

 

[lonetac]

What we ask for is a return to the past. Single player games are unaffected but for a removal of online requirement when publishers/developers no longer maintain the title. Older multiplayer titles still have dedicated user bases that play using private servers. Obviously there isn’t enough money to turn a profit on these private servers or else devs would keep the official ones running, no?

Yes and no. Many companies move on to new games and simply do not want to support games moving forward.

We cant make a generalized statement as we simply dont know.

I dont think there is a good argument that every game needs to operate that way. That stifles game development and creativity.

 

[GhostLegion]

Yes and no. Many companies move on to new games and simply do not want to support games moving forward.

We cant make a generalized statement as we simply dont know.

I dont think there is a good argument that every game needs to operate that way. That stifles game development and creativity.

Nobody is asking them to support the games. We ask that publishers leave them in a playable state when they no longer wish to support them. That’s how it worked in the past and no reason why they can’t do it now except greed.

 

[lonetac]

How about you read the fourth question in the FAQ yourself? It plainly states the same as what I said.

Ah, I concede.

I do not believe every game should be held to the same rules. Especially online only subscription games.

I like those games and want to see new ones. I dont want to see them stop development over arbitrary laws dictating how they must release source code or dev time to allow folks to play their game forever. That will be abused, stolen, reused and possibly incure negative impact on future developments, additional hacks for existing games, etc. Its a can of worms.

I simply disagree. Im no more wrong than you are for your opinion.

 

[lonetac]

Nobody is asking them to support the games. We ask that publishers leave them in a playable state when they no longer wish to support them. That’s how it worked in the past and no reason why they can’t do it now except greed.

MMO's and online only games have never worked that way, what are you talking about? Ive been playing them since ultima.

 

[lonetac]

While it’s great that you have never lost access to a game, many others demonstrably have and not just to games but also movies, music, books and other media. The verbiage used to market these titles has meaning. You said that you “purchased” games but you haven’t purchased anything. You licensed it. There is a legal distinction and if publishers are going to “sell” games then the game must be truly sold and the use of the game must be non-revocable.

Instead of planting a flag in the sand and being obstinate, a better plan for publishers is to acknowledge valid consumer complaints and provide a path forward that best protects their IP while addressing consumer rights. Open sourcing the code may be a bridge too far but if the ability to create private servers is already a feature in the game then that would satisfy most consumers.

I hope you go explain that to the record label that owns the music when they sue you.
I suppose there are copyright protection laws that expire for music eventually. What is it, 70 years?

Do you think a game from 70 years ago will still run today?

 

[lonetac]

I paid $60 for each of numerous WoW expansions. Every one of those transactions were preceded by Blizzard making claims about the product it was selling me. I should have legal rights to prevent them from keeping the $60 while unilaterally clawing back the product and thus rendering all its previous claims false.

Your argument does illustrate that publishers will and probably should avoid this situation by charging subscription fees only and marketing their products accordingly. At that point I'd be a lot less inclined to place any proactive responsibilities on them outside of that subscription period, although my feelings on the nature of the copyright tradeoff remain the same, and that therefore copyright protections, anti-DRM-circumvention laws, etc. should expire on or soon after the date the work would otherwise be completely lost to the public.

I am confused. Please help me understand.

Isnt WoW a subscription after you purchase?

Are you saying if it was subscription ONLY then you might not be so inclined to require it? Isnt that the kind of nuance I have been asking us to have though instead of making broad sweeping bills/laws that dont account for nuance?

How about free to play games? What if you never payed for the game (Fortnite) but have purchased skins. Do they have to let you play their game after they stop supporting it and provide options?

 

[GodisanAtheist]

I am confused. Please help me understand.

Isnt WoW a subscription after you purchase?

- The distinction of course being that you had to purchase. It was not a free to play game.

Are you saying if it was subscription ONLY then you might not be so inclined to require it? Isnt that the kind of nuance I have been asking us to have though instead of making broad sweeping bills/laws that dont account for nuance?

- Who says laws don't account for nuance? All this arguing simply about getting regulations/legislation proposed. The actual details and implementation of which is TBD.

How about free to play games? What if you never payed for the game (Fortnite) but have purchased skins. Do they have to let you play their game after they stop supporting it and provide options?

- My inclination would be yes, you should be able to continue to access the content, even if it means running around empty maps with your skins offline. Accessing the content does not put an onus on the publisher to continue hosting it however.

 

[brucek]

I am confused. Please help me understand.

Isnt WoW a subscription after you purchase?

Are you saying if it was subscription ONLY then you might not be so inclined to require it? Isnt that the kind of nuance I have been asking us to have though instead of making broad sweeping bills/laws that dont account for nuance?

How about free to play games? What if you never payed for the game (Fortnite) but have purchased skins. Do they have to let you play their game after they stop supporting it and provide options?

It's not that hard. As you pointed out a subscription-only model is a lot clearer about when the publisher's responsibilities begin and end. The marketing for that type of transaction is usually clear.

But as soon you mix in $1 that is not a subscription - WoW's base purchase price, a "purchased" skin (the word you yourself used) - now I'd argue that consumers have a legitimate and ongoing interest to retaining the value that was advertised to them as the basis for that transaction and that should not allow for a unilateral kill switch on one side (absent a full return of the purchase price.)

I know at least in the US companies have been allowed to run pretty far with the ball that "well this was not really a sale, it's a license you see, and we never specified an end date for that license, so yeah we can do whatever we want." It's a pretty nifty dodge vs. hundreds of years of common law precedent, and I'm not surprised that it's taken our legal and political systems a long time to start catching up to new business models never previously contemplated - it always does. But your confusion illustrates the basic point that while the publisher may call it a license, to everyone else it sure feels like a purchase, and it's time to start bringing in all the protections that have always applied to purchases, or at least in a reasonably adjusted form for the new opportunities.

 

[GhostLegion]

MMO's and online only games have never worked that way, what are you talking about? Ive been playing them since ultima.

Never? Never? Plenty of online games have had private or LAN server modes. Plenty more have had fans painstakingly reverse engineer servers to keep playing yet you would be hard pressed to find the financial damage such reverse engineering has imposed on owners of the IP in question. Especially if the developer is now defunct.

 

[dioholydiver]

I stopped playing Ubisoft games around 2018, so a good decision on my end. Never coming back to these asshats.