Support NeoGAF

[Guilty_AI]

For those out of the loop, Ross Scott (Accursed Farms), most known for his youtube series Freeman's Mind and Ross Game Dungeon, started a campaign to stop the erasure of game ownership, more specifically force publishers to be required to make sure every game they sell their costumers be eternally accessible on the hardware/software it was released for.

I know many will bring up the argument of "You don't own games! Its all rental!", but the point is publishers don't make that clear enough to the buyer, often even hide it. For this to be a valid argument, they would have to make it explicitly clear that the game they're selling is for limited-time use, possibly even declare how long that time is, which they never do. As many know, whatever they say in EULAs do not precede the law.

The truth is, many governments simply aren't fully aware of the issue. They do not have specific cases or laws to deal with something like this, and many of the games that "die" in this way have a playerbase thats too small and sparse to care enough to do something. Thats how publishers keep getting away with it.

///

Ross has always been outspoken about this. Now he decided to use the last case involving The Crew, a game he liked which servers got shut down a couple of days ago, to kickstart this campaign.

The way to do this to do this through government petitioning, since you can make a case about this through at least some countries laws. And if one country forces the publisher to let users keep their games, its likely this will spread for all other copies around the world since the work would have to be done anyway.

Stop Killing Games

www.stopkillinggames.com

The site above will give you instructions on how you can contribute to the initiative depending on your country of origin. If you own a copy of The Crew you, then you especially can contribute.

This is an issue that has long been discussed here on NeoGAF, with many people having their share of grievances on the matter. So i thought worth it to bring up.

 

[64bitmodels]

The way to do this to do this through government petitioning, since you can make a case about this through at least some countries laws. And if one country forces the publisher to let users keep their games, its likely this will spread for all other copies around the world since the work would have to be done anyway.

fuck yes

if we get the government to force consumer rights and ownership for all games all the problems regarding preservation would drift away like a sandcastle after a wave.

No DRM. No rental bullshit. No license. if a company revokes a game from you and doesn't refund the amount you paid, you should be able to sue and easily get away with it. We must win the war on ownership

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Buy physical copies of games which don't require perpetually online servers to work

Problem solved

 

[Guilty_AI]

Buy physical copies of games which don't require perpetually online servers to work

Yes they do.

The Crew, the game which he's using to make a case, certainly does.

 

[64bitmodels]

Buy physical copies of games which don't require perpetually online servers to work

Multiplayer games get sold physically too. And when those servers get shut down, if they can't open source the online netcode they should at the very least refund you everything you paid

 

[Grildon Tundy]

Have you (you, the person reading this) ever personally experienced this? I'm all for protecting ownership; it's just never happened to me yet, and I know once it does I'll have wished these safeguards were already in place.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Has anyone ever personally experienced this?

I own The Crew actually and played it quite a bit. Would certainly go back to it again... if it was possible.

 

[64bitmodels]

Have you (you, the person reading this) ever personally experienced this? I'm all for protecting ownership; it's just never happened to me yet, and I know once it does I'll have wished these safeguards were already in place.

Any purchased online game that's had their main servers shut down with no official way to self host is a violation of ownership since the game you paid money for doesn't really work anymore. So yes, fucking Mario Kart Wii is sort of an example of this. Brawl and 4 too.

That being said I don't recall having a digital game taken from me ever on any of my systems. but i'd rather be safe than sorry and campaign for better ownership across all game distribution mediums whether physical or digital

 

[A.Romero]

I don't think the government is unaware of this because it's not exclusive to video games.

Back in 2012 a news piece stating that Bruce Willis was suing Apple for the right to inherit his iTunes library to his children went viral. It is false but it got a lot of attention. That would have been enough for the government to start noticing it if they weren't.

Truth is that they simply don't care enough because voters are not putting pressure on it and it's in the best interest of public servants to be on the good side of corporations.

I only bought a single piece of software on PSN almost 20 years ago: Calling All Cars. Years later I tried to access it but it wasn't there anymore. I didn't buy another PSN game for several years until recently. It is BS but it is what it is. Nowadays I just hope to die before my Steam library vanishes... Not that I play it, of course.

 

[Mr.Phoenix]

Ok, this may sound controversial, but I don't think the publishers or even platform holders have any obligation to make their games eternally available. It ultimately just doesn't make sense. What we are literally asking for, is that these platform holders/publishers support the games forever.

I feel what has happened before, and would now be even easier to keep happening is the best way to go about this. And that is that everything ends up on the PC at some point. be it official support or through emulation. Eg. If I make a backup of my entire PS5 library right now to an external HDD. I am pretty sure that in 15-20 years, I would be able to play al;ll those games on a PC. And the same can be said about every other platform.

I don't know why we expect games to forever be supported/distributed when the very nature of consoles or gaming hardware in general, is generational. We aren't insisting that Honda still makes parts for the 3rg Gen Civic, are we? Or that they keep them in stores or in a warehouse that anyone who insists on getting a 3rd gen civic can go and get it, so why should we expect publishers or platform holders to do the same?

If you buy a PS5 (and I am just using that as the example here), every game you buy for it, will work on the PS5. And in the event where you want to keep those games forever, then it's on you to make a backup of the game. You can do that, Sony lets you do that. If in 20 years you decide you want to play your games again, then you pull out your PS5 and load up your backup of it. But to expect that Sony should still have those games on the PS store, 20 years from now, is unrealistic.

 

[Clear]

LOL.

Not a chance in hell!

1. There is no legal basis for this to be applied retroactively. Zero. Its simply unfair to demand something that was never originally provisioned for be done after the fact.
2. How is it going to be enforced exactly? Do you think some agency is going to do an investigation every time the publisher or rights holder says, "Sorry but we can't do that, the team disbanded many years ago."
3. Here's a big one: Who's responible for data protection and security on these zombie "user run" online experiences? See one of the reasons these thing get discontinued is that while they are live they represent a data-liability for the publisher. They need to be maintained securely by somebody due to GDPR and similar legislation.
4. On similar lines, do you think any of the console companies are going to expose their entire online customer-bases to titles that aren't run by trusted (i.e. legally responsible) partners?

Its just dumb on so many levels.

 

[Guilty_AI]

I don't think the government is unaware of this because it's not exclusive to video games.

Back in 2012 a news piece stating that Bruce Willis was suing Apple for the right to inherit his iTunes library to his children went viral. It is false but it got a lot of attention. That would have been enough for the government to start noticing it if they weren't.

Truth is that they simply don't care enough because voters are not putting pressure on it and it's in the best interest of public servants to be on the good side of corporations.

I only bought a single piece of software on PSN almost 20 years ago: Calling All Cars. Years later I tried to access it but it wasn't there anymore. I didn't buy another PSN game for several years until recently. It is BS but it is what it is. Nowadays I just hope to die before my Steam library vanishes... Not that I play it, of course.

Still very much worth the effort though.

The proper path is being laid out in front of us, and people following this in large numbers is certainly a way better alternative than relying on hypothetical consequences some false viral rumor back from 2012.

 

[64bitmodels]

What we are literally asking for, is that these platform holders/publishers support the games forever.

Nah. Just that they give us the tools to let US support them, and stop screwing paying customers over with DRM.

We just want to self-host servers and have no Denuvo junk.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Ok, this may sound controversial, but I don't think the publishers or even platform holders have any obligation to make their games eternally available. It ultimately just doesn't make sense. What we are literally asking for, is that these platform holders/publishers support the games forever.

It's not "eternally available", its "eternally available for the hardware/software it was sold on", which is just an alternative way of saying "Don't purposefully put a trigger that breaks the game randomly" aka "pull the server plug". And yes, this applies to physical games as well, many like The Crew required one, Disk or not.

Also, they may not have the obligation to make their game always available, but they do have the obligation to make that exceedingly clear, as well as tell the user for how long that game will be available. The idea they can rent you a game and not tell you how long you'll have access for it, even obscure the fact that it isn't an eternal license, can very well make a case in some countries, which is what the video talks about.

 

[Mr.Phoenix]

Nah. Just that they give us the tools to let US support them, and stop screwing paying customers over with DRM.

We just want to self-host servers and have no Denuvo junk.

Thats not on them to do. DRM is there for a reason. Lets us not pretend that Piracy is not a thing. Look at what piracy did to the PS2 and the PSP.

They only need to make sure the games they put out, work on the platform they are on. I would have a problem if in 10 years, I get out my PS5, turn it on, and it turns on, and then copy over some games I have stored on an external HDD to it, but then get an error message saying this game can no longer work. As long as its not an online game that requires servers to host it, that would be a big issue.

But its not on them to make sure you can still play PS5 games on the PS7. Or that Helldivers 2 servers are still running when we have Helldivers 6.

And I think I have said it as best as I can already, we arent asking Honda to still be making parts of the 3rd gen Honda Civic (think we are on the 12th gen now or so). Or take make sure those cars still work.

 

[64bitmodels]

Thats not on them to do. DRM is there for a reason. Lets us not pretend that Piracy is not a thing. Look at what piracy did to the PS2 and the PSP.

the former is the highest selling console of all time. the latter is relevant in 2024 because it is a cheap, great portable emulation machine with a great library of its own.

I don't want to be too positive about piracy on this board, but homebrew software and easy jailbreakability only extend a system's lifespan.

I get out my PS5, turn it on, and it turns on, and then copy over some games I have stored on an external HDD to it, but then get an error message saying this game can no longer work. As long as its not an online game that requires servers to host it, that would be a big issue.

It should be a big issue for online games, especially ones you paid for. I paid good money for Helldivers 2 and I'd rather not the experiences and fun of that game be temporary.

Arrowhead should be working on making the server code public and easy for people to host on I.E Minecraft. Once they do that people won't bother them anymore.

Do you see anyone bothering John Romero or John Carmack about Doom and Quake online? no, because you can self host and play those games online at any time.

And I think I have said it as best as I can already, we arent asking Honda to still be making parts of the 3rd gen Honda Civic (think we are on the 12th gen now or so). Or take make sure those cars still work.

Maybe not but i'm sure there are people making aftermarket parts for those cars. Modern online gaming won't even let us swap our own tires. If a part goes bad you just have to say goodbye to the car.

 

[Guilty_AI]

LOL.

Not a chance in hell!

1. There is no legal basis for this to be applied retroactively. Zero. Its simply unfair to demand something that was never originally provisioned for be done after the fact.
2. How is it going to be enforced exactly? Do you think some agency is going to do an investigation every time the publisher or rights holder says, "Sorry but we can't do that, the team disbanded many years ago."
3. Here's a big one: Who's responible for data protection and security on these zombie "user run" online experiences? See one of the reasons these thing get discontinued is that while they are live they represent a data-liability for the publisher. They need to be maintained securely by somebody due to GDPR and similar legislation.
4. On similar lines, do you think any of the console companies are going to expose their entire online customer-bases to titles that aren't run by trusted (i.e. legally responsible) partners?

Its just dumb on so many levels.

1&2 -> He doesn't talk about applying this retroactively (except for the immediate case here which is with The Crew)
3&4 -> They don't need to be the ones maintaning the service. In fact, under the arguments being used they could probably still make live service games and shut them down in the future without issue as long as they make the terms of "rental" clear, which they dont.

 

[Laptop1991]

Agree with this, hope he succeeds, US laws shouldn't apply to the whole world, if i pay for something i own it and it doesn't matter what the EULA says, as if this "you don't own your games" narrative is going to help gaming in the long run, it will mean less sales not more.

I have Cyberpunk 2077 and Phantom Liberty and The Witcher 3 from GOG downloaded from the back up installers on my hd and External hd,, so i can install it and play it whenever i want because i own it! if Valve try this and i don't think they would be as stupid as Ubisoft, i'll just get the Fallout's from GOG as well.

 

[majorgamer10]

When I logged in to League of Legends 10 years later and found my account permabanned for no reason really. Waste of 2 years of my life and money for fuck all.

Should have gone to college, instead, for a permanent upgrade in life, but who knows how useful that is these days, anyway, lol.

Chasing the Dream

 

[TGO]

May terminate the service at anytime without notice*
Nice little thing they added to digital purchases, obviously we seen this before on Multiplayer games with our physical purchases but that literally means the online service.
And they been doing that for years
You kinda expect it as the servers cost to run.
But with Digital Games?
It means the actual game.
Now I understand removing from the store, but those fuckers will actually disable or uninstall it from your device.
That's just wrong and there really isn't a reasonable reason to do it.
To quote Christopher Nolan
"If you buy a 4K Blu-ray or a CD, it's on your shelf, it's yours. No company is going to break into your house and take it from you and try to repossess it because they can't, It's yours and you own it. That's never really the case with any form of digital distribution and they'd like for you to forget that"

Honestly though, some people don't care until it happens to them.

 

[Feel Like I'm On 42]

This is so fucking important to someone like myself with a HUGE library of all digital games.

There really should be protections and guarantee that we'll always have access to our games!

Please guys sign the petition. These corporations don't give a fuck right now and Sony and MS and other big publishers have done NOTHING so far to put our minds at ease on this huge issue.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

This is so fucking important to someone like myself with a HUGE library of all digital games.

There really should be protections and guarantee that we'll always have access to our games!

Please guys sign the petition. These corporations don't give a fuck right now and Sony and MS and other big publishers have done NOTHING so far to put our minds at ease on this huge issue.

Why don't you just buy physical games?

You chose the path you are on. Nobody made that choice for you

 

[Feel Like I'm On 42]

Any purchased online game that's had their main servers shut down with no official way to self host is a violation of ownership since the game you paid money for doesn't really work anymore. So yes, fucking Mario Kart Wii is sort of an example of this. Brawl and 4 too.

That being said I don't recall having a digital game taken from me ever on any of my systems. but i'd rather be safe than sorry and campaign for better ownership across all game distribution mediums whether physical or digital

Fucking Destiny 2 had 2 campaigns and 3 expansions permamenyly removed and Gearbox' Battleborn is no longer playable. Those are a couple examples of games that I would like to have been able to play again someday.

You can't even play them on Disc afaik. This is going to happen to many more games in the coming years. This needs to be prevented at all costs. PC gamers don't have to worry as much due to private servers and mods buy on console? Sony and MS have ALL the power compared to their customers. This is where the law needs to come into play. I don't know what the most reasonable solution is but SOMETHING has to change going forward.

 

[Feel Like I'm On 42]

Why don't you just buy physical games?

You chose the path you are on. Nobody made that choice for you

OK ...so? I paid just as much for these games as those who bought physically, why shouldn't I be just as safe with my purchase going forward? Better yet, why isn't digital ownership being protected going forward something we should all want and strive for? What a bizarre mindset you have there ...

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

This is pretty much exclusively a thing for online games and personally I don’t give a rats ass if a company closes down servers for an old online game. I think it’s only affected me personally twice, Battleborn and Guardians of Middle Earth. And even though I still loved and played those games, I understood they weren’t popular and the publishers won’t going to keep them up forever.

The Crew being shut down sucks for anyone still playing but it’s ten years old and has two sequels out AFAIK. I highly doubt many were still playing. How do you even force a publisher to keep servers up in perpetuity? Imagine the monetization that would occur if pubs were forced to do that. It would be the death of cool little $20-40 online titles.

 

[nkarafo]

Buy physical copies of games which don't require perpetually online servers to work

Problem solved

Doesn't matter if it's physical or digital. What matters is if there's online DRM or not.

GOG releases are not physical and you can install them to as many systems as you want and play them for as long as you want.

 

[Robb]

Something needs to happen for sure. The current “market” is ridiculous. You should be able to purchase whatever they offer and not be locked to a specific provider, nor should they be able to dictate the content you are allowed to keep of said product. You should also be able to re-sell the product you bought if you like, to whoever you like.

It’s insane things work as they currently do imo, and it’s solely dictated by corporate greed and inherently designed to remove consumer rights.

 

[ZehDon]

Buy physical copies of games which don't require perpetually online servers to work

Problem solved

Oh my sweet summer child.

Xbox in particular is real bad about their games shipping to retail basically non-functional without monstrous day one patches. If the servers go down, those patches will no longer be available to you and your physical game won't be worth the plastic its printed on.

In PC land, any game I care deeply enough about, I backup myself. GOG are fantastic for preservation in this regard, with pre-packaged installers ready for download. In console land, you can backup installs - inclusive of any patches - to external drives, but I've never actually put this into practice to see if it works entirely offline.

 

[SHA]

Take the red pill and live with it, it's your problem, or the blue pill and use emulators with all the games you owned, Emulation is not a taboo or a bad habit, the cultural barrier doesn't exist, it's not real, these youtubers with their huge collections when they bring this topic I just can't stand what they say, just get over it, y'all make it hard, it's okay to use your pc for these types of practices.

 

[Longcat]

This is pretty much exclusively a thing for online games.

Yes, it's technically an online game in the sense that it won't start if you're not online, like modern Diablo. But it doesn't need to be and that's what sucks. I don't think I ever played with other people in The Crew. It played fine solo. Perfect podcast game.

I understand that they can't have servers running for every dead multiplayer game out there. That would be too expensive. But to nuke a whole game because it has some online components or DRM? No way man. They should have an offline patch ready when they pull the plug on games like this.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Oh my sweet summer child.

Xbox in particular is real bad about their games shipping to retail basically non-functional without monstrous day one patches. If the servers go down, those patches will no longer be available to you and your physical game won't be worth the plastic its printed on.

In PC land, any game I care deeply enough about, I backup myself. GOG are fantastic for preservation in this regard, with pre-packaged installers ready for download. In console land, you can backup installs - inclusive of any patches - to external drives, but I've never actually put this into practice to see if it works entirely offline.

This sounds like an Xbox Exclusive Problem, because on the Sony and Nintendo consoles, the vast majority of physical games are shipped on a disc ready to play by putting the game in without connecting to the Internet to download anything

DoesItPlay? - Home

Working to ensure games remain accessible now and always!

www.doesitplay.org

 

[Filben]

Have you (you, the person reading this) ever personally experienced this?

Shadowrun Chronicles Boston Lockdown, which is (now) no longer available for purchase.

This game had a third party launcher after starting it via Steam. I couldn't log-in/start the game because their servers were already not functional anymore but they still sold it on Steam at that time. It was literally not functional software when obtained through the official channels (which is now not possible anymore). Maybe people got it running tinkering with it, bypassing the server check or host private servers... I don't know. But that's not the way it's supposed to work. And for console games, this is even more unlikely.

 

[MonkeyClaw36]

Oh my sweet summer child.

Xbox in particular is real bad about their games shipping to retail basically non-functional without monstrous day one patches. If the servers go down, those patches will no longer be available to you and your physical game won't be worth the plastic its printed on.

People buying physical in this day and age and expect the content to be on the discs is a complete and utter imbecile.
Usually it's just a license with a few files on it. Just for shelf bragging.

Buying physical isnt a solution these days. Its just nice to put on the shelf. Nothing more.

 

[crackajack]

"Ownership" is certainly not coming back, especially not with online games, but they should label "buying" "renting" since it's always this if there is an inevitable expiry date attached to it.

 

[The_Observer]

I don’t know how feasible this is, but it’s nice that he is doing this. F the “you will own nothing and be happy” insanity bullshit.

 

[Guilty_AI]

How do you even force a publisher to keep servers up in perpetuity? Imagine the monetization that would occur if pubs were forced to do that. It would be the death of cool little $20-40 online titles.

They don't have to. Many older multiplayer games can still be played today as they have the option to set up private servers. That's without going into the merit of "online games" that don't need to be online at all. The Crew can be played solo in its entirety, there's no reason for it to need an internet connection other than Ubisoft demanding it.

 

[hemo memo]

"Ownership" is certainly not coming back, especially not with online games, but they should label "buying" "renting" since it's always this if there is an inevitable expiry date attached to it.

“Renting” open a can of worms for them. Refunds policy for a start will change.

 

[Guilty_AI]

“Renting” open a can of worms for them. Refunds policy for a start will change.

Yes, also if they have to make explicit the fact a given game is a "rental" right on the purchase and give a clear expiration date, rather than a perpetual license with guarantees of such, this would undoubtedly affect sales.

 

[MonkeyClaw36]

They don't have to. Many older multiplayer games can still be played today as they have the option to set up private servers. That's without going into the merit of "online games" that don't need to be online at all. The Crew can be played solo in its entirety, there's no reason for it to need an internet connection other than Ubisoft demanding it.

False!!

The Crew was always meant as an MMO of sorts where people could drop into your session. THATS why always online was required.
Not because of some conspiracy-esque reason.

Get your facts straight.

 

[crackajack]

“Renting” open a can of worms for them. Refunds policy for a start will change.

Of course. Refunding is a right in some countries, for any "buy", so not allowing refunds might not be entirely legal currently. Some clear law texts that also apply to digital goods have to be properly worded, which probably has not yet been done after decades of digital stuff and EULA agreements... That needs to happen either way, but moving to the term renting seems inevitable in that process since you buy nothing which the buy button still pretends to mean. Equally physical goods, which barely contain an offline product anymore, those also need to be clearly defined what they include (at least a forever SP game?), and what not (not a forever MP, expire date at minimum 4 months after purchase or whatever).

 

[Guilty_AI]

False!!

The Crew was always meant as an MMO of sorts where people could drop into your session. THATS why always online was required.
Not because of some conspiracy-esque reason.

Get your facts straight.

I have 130 hours in The Crew. You can, in fact, play through it entirely as a solo singleplayer game.

Whatever online components are there are "optional" features you're just forced to live with as you couldn't go offline.

 

[Filben]

For my fellow German-speaking people I've written a text to the Verbraucherzentrale and send them a email through their contact form.

Feel free to use this text and/or change it to your liking:

Spoiler

Das Computerspiel "The Crew", entwickelt von Ubisoft und erschienen 2014 für Windows-PC, Xbox 360, Xbox One und die PlayStation 4, ist seit dem 31. März 2024 nicht mehr spielbar. Kein Käufer des Originalspiels, egal ob digital oder physisch im Einzelhandel erworben, hat mehr Zugriff auf die Inhalte des gekauften Produktes. Grund dafür ist die Voraussetzung einer persistenten Online-Verbindung zu den Servern der Entwickler bzw. des Publishers. Die Server wurden einseitig seitens des Publishers deaktiviert und dauerhaft offline genommen. Ohne diese Verbindung, kann kein einziger Spielmodus des Spiels gespielt werden, was das Produkt für alle rechtmäßigen Käufer unbrauchbar macht.

Eine Offline-Version des Spiels mittels Patch*, d.h. Zugang zu den Spielinhalten ohne Server-Abfrage, wurde nicht zur Verfügung gestellt.

Nutzungsbestimmungen/AGBs, die u.a. die Zugangsrechte zu den Spielinhalten regeln, sind nur schwer einsehbar (oft erst nach dem Erwerb eines Spiels oder nur online abrufbar), lang und schwer verständlich. Ob die Klauseln in den Nutzungsbestimmungen im Einklang mit den Einzelnormen des BGB stehen, ist an vielen Stellen nicht ersichtlich, oft sogar zweifelhaft. Bisher wurde diese nicht angefochten oder in Präzedensfällen geklärt und ein Einklang mit der aktuellen Rechtsauffassung im Bezug auf digitale Güter gebracht. Es ist somit unklar, ob hier der Entwickler rechtskonform oder rechtswidrig agiert. Dies stellt nicht nur in diesem konkreten Fall einen erheblichen Nachteil für den Verbraucher dar, sondern auch in Zukunft, da fundierte Kaufentscheidungen nur schwer getroffen werden können, so lange es eine unklare Rechtsauffassung zum Nutzungsrecht von Computerspiel-Software gibt.

Folgende Fragen stehen deshalb im Raum:
- wie lange muss ein Entwickler oder Publisher die Nutzung von erworbener Software gewährleisten können?
- muss der Entwickler eine Möglichkeit zur Offline-Nutzung (ohne Internetverbindung) bereitstellen?
- muss dies vor dem Kauf eindeutig kommuniziert werden, und wenn ja, in welcher Form?
- handelt es sich dabei um einen Kauf im Sinne eines Kaufvertrag nach §433 BGB, eines Mietvertrags nach §535 BGB oder eine andere Vertragsart?
- wird diese Vertragsart bei Abschluss bzw. beim Abgeben der Willenserklärungen deutlich und für den Verbraucher transparent angezeigt?

Praktisch gesehen kann, nach jetzigem Stand, jeder Entwickler den Zugang zu Spielen, die eine Online-Verbindung benötigen (und es sei es nur zum Start eines Spiels), entziehen. Somit ist der "Käufer" (in sofern es sich tatsächlich um einen Kauf nach BGB handelt) der Willkür und Entscheidungen des Entwicklers über das Produkt ausgeliefert und hat keine Kontrolle über das erkaufte "Nutzungsrecht".

Davon unangetastet ist der Fakt, dass die einwandfreie Funktionalität von Software nur auf den ursprünglich dafür konzipierten Endgeräten erwartbar ist (z.B. eine Kassette für einen Kassettenspieler, ein PlayStation-3-Spiel für eine PlayStation-3-Konsole) und KEINE endgerätübergreifende Funktionalität erwartet und das Fehlen solcher angefochten werden soll.

Kurz und praktisch ausgedrückt: Aus Verbrauchersicht sollte ein PlayStation-4-Spiel auf einer technisch funktionierenden PlayStation-4-Konsole so lange lauffähig sein, wie die Konsole selbst und der Datenträger, der den Spielcode enthält, funktioniert. Der Spielcode selbst sollte unabhängig von externen Variablen und Einflüssen sein und "in sich geschlossen" funktionieren. Die Variable Zeit ist mit eingeschlossen und sollte ebenfalls keinen Einfluss auf die Funktionalität haben. So lange ich einen funktionalen Kassettenspieler habe, kann ich auch heute noch eine funktionalle Kassette darauf abspielen. Dies ist beim Kauf (beider Geräte) eindeutig und transparent und entspricht dem Erwartungshorizont des Verbrauchers. Bei Videospielen wird die Eindeutigkeit und Transparenz zunehmend unscharf zum Leidtragen des Verbrauchers.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,


*Veränderung bzw. Anpassung des Spielcodes, um Fehler oder Probleme zu beheben oder weitere Inhalte oder Funktionen zu verändern oder hinzufügen)

For English-speaking people I've used DeepL to translate the text. Please keep in my mind that legal references apply to German law so you'd probably want to change these sections.

Spoiler

The computer game "The Crew", developed by Ubisoft and released in 2014 for Windows PC, Xbox 360, Xbox One and PlayStation 4, is no longer playable as of March 31, 2024. No buyer of the original game, whether purchased digitally or physically at retail, will have access to the content of the purchased product. The reason for this is the requirement for a persistent online connection to the developer's or publisher's servers. The servers were unilaterally deactivated by the publisher and taken offline permanently. Without this connection, not a single game mode of the game can be played, making the product unusable for all legitimate buyers.

An offline version of the game via patch*, i.e. access to the game content without server queries, has not been made available.

Terms of use/AGBs, which regulate access rights to game content, among other things, are difficult to view (often only available after purchasing a game or only online), long and difficult to understand. Whether the clauses in the terms of use are in line with the individual standards of the German Civil Code (BGB) is not clear in many places, and often even doubtful. So far, this has not been challenged or clarified in precedent cases and brought into line with the current legal interpretation with regard to digital goods. It is therefore unclear whether the developer is acting legally compliant or unlawfully. This not only represents a considerable disadvantage for the consumer in this specific case, but also in the future, as it will be difficult to make well-founded purchasing decisions as long as there is an unclear legal interpretation of the right to use computer game software.

The following questions therefore arise:
- how long must a developer or publisher be able to guarantee the use of purchased software?
- must the developer provide the option of offline use (without an internet connection)?
- must this be clearly communicated before the purchase, and if so, in what form?
- is this a purchase in the sense of a purchase contract according to §433 BGB, a rental contract according to §535 BGB or another type of contract?
- Is this type of contract clearly and transparently indicated to the consumer when the contract is concluded or when the declarations of intent are made?

In practice, as things stand at present, any developer can withdraw access to games that require an online connection (even if only to start a game). This means that the "buyer" (if it is actually a purchase according to the German Civil Code) is at the mercy of the developer's arbitrary decisions about the product and has no control over the purchased "right of use".

Unaffected by this is the fact that the flawless functionality of software can only be expected on the end devices originally designed for it (e.g. a cassette for a cassette player, a PlayStation 3 game for a PlayStation 3 console) and no cross-device functionality is expected and the lack of such is NOT to be contested.

In short and practical terms: from a consumer perspective, a PlayStation 4 game should be able to run on a technically functioning PlayStation 4 console for as long as the console itself and the data carrier containing the game code work. The game code itself should be independent of external variables and influences and function "self-contained". The variable time is included and should also have no influence on the functionality. As long as I have a functional cassette player, I can still play a functional cassette on it. This is clear and transparent at the time of purchase (of both devices) and corresponds to the consumer's expectations. With video games, the clarity and transparency becomes increasingly blurred to the detriment of the consumer.

Yours sincerely,


(*Change or customization of the game code to fix bugs or problems or to change or add additional content or features)

 

[hemo memo]

Of course. Refunding is a right in some countries, for any "buy", so not allowing refunds might not be entirely legal currently. Some clear law texts that also apply to digital goods have to be properly worded, which probably has not yet been done after decades of digital stuff and EULA agreements... That needs to happen either way, but moving to the term renting seems inevitable in that process since you buy nothing which the buy button still pretends to mean. Equally physical goods, which barely contain an offline product anymore, those also need to be clearly defined what they include (at least a forever SP game?), and what not (not a forever MP, expire date at minimum 4 months after purchase or whatever).

Last week I’ve returned a game on Ubisoft store and was so impressed how simple (or even possible) it’s being a console player all my life. It’s criminal the way it’s done on consoles.

 

[Guilty_AI]

For my fellow German-speaking people I've written a text to the Verbraucherzentrale and send them a email through their contact form.

Feel free to use this text and/or change it to your liking:

Spoiler

Das Computerspiel "The Crew", entwickelt von Ubisoft und erschienen 2014 für Windows-PC, Xbox 360, Xbox One und die PlayStation 4, ist seit dem 14. Dezember 2023 nicht mehr spielbar. Kein Käufer des Originalspiels, egal ob digital oder physisch im Einzelhandel erworben, hat mehr Zugriff auf die Inhalte des gekauften Produktes. Grund dafür ist die Voraussetzung einer persistenten Online-Verbindung zu den Servern der Entwickler bzw. des Publishers. Die Server wurden einseitig seitens des Publishers deaktiviert und dauerhaft offline genommen. Ohne diese Verbindung, kann kein einziger Spielmodus des Spiels gespielt werden, was das Produkt für alle rechtmäßigen Käufer unbrauchbar macht.

Eine Offline-Version des Spiels mittels Patch*, d.h. Zugang zu den Spielinhalten ohne Server-Abfrage, wurde nicht zur Verfügung gestellt.

Nutzungsbestimmungen/AGBs, die u.a. die Zugangsrechte zu den Spielinhalten regeln, sind nur schwer einsehbar (oft erst nach dem Erwerb eines Spiels oder nur online abrufbar), lang und schwer verständlich. Ob die Klauseln in den Nutzungsbestimmungen im Einklang mit den Einzelnormen des BGB stehen, ist an vielen Stellen nicht ersichtlich, oft sogar zweifelhaft. Bisher wurde diese nicht angefochten oder in Präzedensfällen geklärt und ein Einklang mit der aktuellen Rechtsauffassung im Bezug auf digitale Güter gebracht. Es ist somit unklar, ob hier der Entwickler rechtskonform oder rechtswidrig agiert. Dies stellt nicht nur in diesem konkreten Fall einen erheblichen Nachteil für den Verbraucher dar, sondern auch in Zukunft, da fundierte Kaufentscheidungen nur schwer getroffen werden können, so lange es eine unklare Rechtsauffassung zum Nutzungsrecht von Computerspiel-Software gibt.

Folgende Fragen stehen deshalb im Raum:
- wie lange muss ein Entwickler oder Publisher die Nutzung von erworbener Software gewährleisten können?
- muss der Entwickler eine Möglichkeit zur Offline-Nutzung (ohne Internetverbindung) bereitstellen?
- muss dies vor dem Kauf eindeutig kommuniziert werden, und wenn ja, in welcher Form?
- handelt es sich dabei um einen Kauf im Sinne eines Kaufvertrag nach §433 BGB, eines Mietvertrags nach §535 BGB oder eine andere Vertragsart?
- wird diese Vertragsart bei Abschluss bzw. beim Abgeben der Willenserklärungen deutlich und für den Verbraucher transparent angezeigt?

Praktisch gesehen kann, nach jetzigem Stand, jeder Entwickler den Zugang zu Spielen, die eine Online-Verbindung benötigen (und es sei es nur zum Start eines Spiels), entziehen. Somit ist der "Käufer" (in sofern es sich tatsächlich um einen Kauf nach BGB handelt) der Willkür und Entscheidungen des Entwicklers über das Produkt ausgeliefert und hat keine Kontrolle über das erkaufte "Nutzungsrecht".

Davon unangetastet ist der Fakt, dass die einwandfreie Funktionalität von Software nur auf den ursprünglich dafür konzipierten Endgeräten erwartbar ist (z.B. eine Kassette für einen Kassettenspieler, ein PlayStation-3-Spiel für eine PlayStation-3-Konsole) und KEINE endgerätübergreifende Funktionalität erwartet und das Fehlen solcher angefochten werden soll.

Kurz und praktisch ausgedrückt: Aus Verbrauchersicht sollte ein PlayStation-4-Spiel auf einer technisch funktionierenden PlayStation-4-Konsole so lange lauffähig sein, wie die Konsole selbst und der Datenträger, der den Spielcode enthält, funktioniert. Der Spielcode selbst sollte unabhängig von externen Variablen und Einflüssen sein und "in sich geschlossen" funktionieren. Die Variable Zeit ist mit eingeschlossen und sollte ebenfalls keinen Einfluss auf die Funktionalität haben. So lange ich einen funktionalen Kassettenspieler habe, kann ich auch heute noch eine funktionalle Kassette darauf abspielen. Dies ist beim Kauf (beider Geräte) eindeutig und transparent und entspricht dem Erwartungshorizont des Verbrauchers. Bei Videospielen wird die Eindeutigkeit und Transparenz zunehmend unscharf zum Leidtragen des Verbrauchers.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,


*Veränderung bzw. Anpassung des Spielcodes, um Fehler oder Probleme zu beheben oder weitere Inhalte oder Funktionen zu verändern oder hinzufügen)

For English-speaking people I've used DeepL to translate the text. Please keep in my mind that legal references apply to German law so you'd probably want to change these sections.

Spoiler

The computer game "The Crew", developed by Ubisoft and released in 2014 for Windows PC, Xbox 360, Xbox One and PlayStation 4, is no longer playable as of December 14, 2023. No buyer of the original game, whether purchased digitally or physically at retail, will have access to the content of the purchased product. The reason for this is the requirement for a persistent online connection to the developer's or publisher's servers. The servers were unilaterally deactivated by the publisher and taken offline permanently. Without this connection, not a single game mode of the game can be played, making the product unusable for all legitimate buyers.

An offline version of the game via patch*, i.e. access to the game content without server queries, has not been made available.

Terms of use/AGBs, which regulate access rights to game content, among other things, are difficult to view (often only available after purchasing a game or only online), long and difficult to understand. Whether the clauses in the terms of use are in line with the individual standards of the German Civil Code (BGB) is not clear in many places, and often even doubtful. So far, this has not been challenged or clarified in precedent cases and brought into line with the current legal interpretation with regard to digital goods. It is therefore unclear whether the developer is acting legally compliant or unlawfully. This not only represents a considerable disadvantage for the consumer in this specific case, but also in the future, as it will be difficult to make well-founded purchasing decisions as long as there is an unclear legal interpretation of the right to use computer game software.

The following questions therefore arise:
- how long must a developer or publisher be able to guarantee the use of purchased software?
- must the developer provide the option of offline use (without an internet connection)?
- must this be clearly communicated before the purchase, and if so, in what form?
- is this a purchase in the sense of a purchase contract according to §433 BGB, a rental contract according to §535 BGB or another type of contract?
- Is this type of contract clearly and transparently indicated to the consumer when the contract is concluded or when the declarations of intent are made?

In practice, as things stand at present, any developer can withdraw access to games that require an online connection (even if only to start a game). This means that the "buyer" (if it is actually a purchase according to the German Civil Code) is at the mercy of the developer's arbitrary decisions about the product and has no control over the purchased "right of use".

Unaffected by this is the fact that the flawless functionality of software can only be expected on the end devices originally designed for it (e.g. a cassette for a cassette player, a PlayStation 3 game for a PlayStation 3 console) and no cross-device functionality is expected and the lack of such is NOT to be contested.

In short and practical terms: from a consumer perspective, a PlayStation 4 game should be able to run on a technically functioning PlayStation 4 console for as long as the console itself and the data carrier containing the game code work. The game code itself should be independent of external variables and influences and function "self-contained". The variable time is included and should also have no influence on the functionality. As long as I have a functional cassette player, I can still play a functional cassette on it. This is clear and transparent at the time of purchase (of both devices) and corresponds to the consumer's expectations. With video games, the clarity and transparency becomes increasingly blurred to the detriment of the consumer.

Yours sincerely,


(*Change or customization of the game code to fix bugs or problems or to change or add additional content or features)

Just a minor correction, the date the game became unplayable was March 31, 2024 not December 14, 2023

 

[Filben]

Just a minor correction, the date the game became unplayable was March 31, 2024 not December 14, 2023

Thanks, will edit that!

 

[Guilty_AI]

He made an ADHD version of the video for the zoomers lmao

 

[Thick Thighs Save Lives]

Mutahar did a video on it so hopefully the campaign will continue to get more traction.

Hello guys and gals, it's me Mutahar again! This time we take a look at what appears to be a campaign started by a fellow YouTuber Ross of Accursed Farms. With our very medium at risk of being delisted day by day it's time someone takes these publishers to task to properly preserves the games we buy.

 

[MonkeyClaw36]

Just make an option for private servers. It's not that hard.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Just make an option for private servers. It's not that hard.

if they would only do that much...

 

[64bitmodels]

Why don't you just buy physical games?

You chose the path you are on. Nobody made that choice for you

Idk ask pc gamers that