• Buffalox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    207
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    The Crew’s servers, scheduled for Sunday March 31, represents a “gray area” in videogame consumer law that he would like to challenge.

    I think the argument to make is that The Crew was sold under a perpetual license, not a subscription, so we were being sold a good, not a service

    the seller rendered the game unusable and deprived it of all value after the point of sale.

    Goddam right, that’s not a grey area IMO, that shit ought to be illegal. Maybe there should be a term, like let’s say 90 years maybe?

    • Dran@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      110
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      My personal favorite is the “companies are obligated to support it forever, or open source the server software hosted by a third party, hosting paid for up front for at least a year.”

      They get to keep my money forever don’t they?

      • Lodra@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        46
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        While I love the spirit of this idea, it gets complicated fast. Worlds adrift is a great example. The game’s server was created using some closed source libraries with a paid license. So when the owning company (Bossa Studios?) went under, they were unable to open source it.

        A law like this would effectively kill all licensed software that isn’t a full product. I do agree though; we need a solution

        • tsonfeir@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          When the initially licensed the library, they should’ve included distributed binary copies. That may have allowed them to release the source for their game alongside the binary of the library.

          • Lodra@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            10 months ago

            An interesting idea but it’s not possible with all languages. E.g. golang. But probably not the case with worlds adrift. I’m guessing it’s more of an incentive problem for the other company. No more revenue = why bother?

            • tsonfeir@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              10 months ago

              I think it’s like when a tv show doesn’t bother to negotiate the music rights for syndication and then they can’t air it anymore if the audio can’t be removed.

              “What happens in 10 years?” Isn’t always a priority. Also, I’m sure that makes the price go up.

            • tsonfeir@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              10 months ago

              Also, you could use CGo, but if you know golang, then you know why that’s not always a viable option.

    • DeLift@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      10 months ago

      I just expect a popup in the game which says something like “Could not connect to server, some multiplayer features will be unavailable. Continue offline?”

    • tsonfeir@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      10 months ago

      Or, maybe don’t force online requirement, and allow p2p. Or, better yet, open source the server now that it’s shut down and release a patch to specify where to connect.

    • circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Imagine buying a T-shirt, and the manufacturer, without your prior knowledge or consent, could somehow render your shirt unwearable – that’s effectively what’s happening here. The only “gray area” might be that ultimately you don’t own a copy of the game anyway (since digital copies are effectively leased – a whole other issue unto itself), but regardless: more power to this lawsuit. Seriously shady shit getting tacitly accepted lately.

      • yeehaw@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        “we lost our license to print this brands logo on our shirts, so you have to give it back now”

        Smh

      • Maalus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        “Imagine everyone moves to electric vehicles, gas stations close down, and people start sueing Ford for releasing a gas car 30 years ago” is the better analogy.

        • mranachi@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          10 months ago

          That’s a terrible analogy.

          It’s more like, imagine Fords required a connect to a server to run and they turned that server off, stopping a perfectly functional car you purchased from working.

          Then you sued them to force them to make the car work without the server.