[MODERATED] EULA, EA, Valve, InsertPublisherHere and you.

[Shooop]

As was mentioned before: People are ASKING for those features. They are asking for steamworks to have cloud storage and achievements and a usable DLC store.

Yes, publishers are encouraging this, but so far most of their tests seem to show that they have what people want: DLC and achivements. And that is what the online aspect of the singleplayer game is.

DLC isn't tied to always-online. Remember we used to call them expansion packs? They still work like that, it's only things like ahcivements and cloud storage that are online services. I can run Borderlands 2 DLC in single player without a Steam connection fine.

And again, nobody is being thrown out of a service because of what they do in SP. They are thrown out because of what they do in MP and in the community as a whole. And it is the service's complete right to say "You know what? Rather than deal with you every time you act like an asshole, just stop using our service entirely".

They're also getting thrown out because of what an overzealous moderator on a forum thinks they've done. And the problem is only going to get worse.

[gundato]

DLC isn't tied to always-online. Remember we used to call them expansion packs? They still work like that, it's only things like ahcivements and cloud storage that are online services. I can run Borderlands 2 DLC in single player without a Steam connection fine.

But you can't get cloud saving and achievements and the like. And people want those

They're also getting thrown out because of what an overzealous moderator on a forum thinks they've done. And the problem is only going to get worse.

Again, people keep claiming this. Do we have a listing of all these innocents who were banned for misunderstandings? And didn't EA admit the game-bans shouldn't have been tied to the forum-bans?
The ONLY questionable one that didn't immediately get a "Oh, THAT is why the guy was banned" was the person who was quoting crap when BF3 launched, and even that fell off the face of the earth pretty fast.

[Jesus_Phish]

But you can't get cloud saving and achievements and the like. And people want those

And others don't. But it's being shoehorned into every game out there and it's not because "people want it", it's because it allows the publisher or dev to force you into a state of always online.

Look at D3, obviously built around the AH and requires people to play online all the time. D2 had a single player mode that didn't require log ins or a connection to a server and I don't recall in my years of playing it thinking "man I wish this game had score points at arbitrary checkpoints to tell me how good I am"

Are you going to say that EA are actually telling us people are asking, demanding for microtransations in Dead Space 3?

[Vicious]

You don't need an always-on internet connection to have achievements linked to an online profile gundato.

[QuantaCat]

Are you going to say that EA are actually telling us people are asking, demanding for microtransations in Dead Space 3?

I do believe that microtransactions arent necessarily part of this debacle. Not every game that is on steam uses the Free To Play model. And most keep the DLC out of the main products, still an entirely optional deal. Also, steamworks has its positives as well, the entire modding aspect that keeps the dicks out (literally), as well as possibility to be featured in community updates, etc.

Of course, this -again- depends on the community of how effective it is.

[Jesus_Phish]

I do believe that microtransactions arent necessarily part of this debacle. Not every game that is on steam uses the Free To Play model. And most keep the DLC out of the main products, still an entirely optional deal. Also, steamworks has its positives as well, the entire modding aspect that keeps the dicks out (literally), as well as possibility to be featured in community updates, etc.

Of course, this -again- depends on the community of how effective it is.

My reason for bringing up Dead Space 3 is that it, a $60 game is going to include micro-transactions for upgrading your weapons at a faster rate. This is being done because mobile gamers expect it.Now, you and I know that's BS. It's being shoe horned in off the back of a straw man argument that all mobile gamers want are endless microtransactions. So they might not seem part of the issue, but they're going to be sooner than we might like.

The same thing happened with achievements and now they're considered a requirement of gaming. As Vicious says, you don't even need to be online to earn them, just to "sync" it back up.

As for the modding - again, it's already in place in other sites (Nexus was around much longer).
Cloud syncing save files is nice - but that's Steam and not the devs doing that so it can't really be used as a defence for why licensing is good.

[RobF]

EA's argument that they're speaking mobile gamers language is obviously bullshit at a fundamental level. However, there is a grain of truth that there are large portions of the mobile audience who are vocal in wanting IAP and microtransactions putting into games. For some it's "let me give you my money please" for others, obviously, it's a way of trying to get more out of something you've exhausted and there's obviously a queue of developers who are happy to do this. Now, that's not going into the moral should/shouldn't but it's a thing that happens. It's an audience not necessarily (nor necessarily) content with a package having a definitive end.

(Personally, I'm not keen on the idea that "they asked so obviously we're doing them a favour" gets kicked around but I guess some people don't like saying "no" to money.)

But, y'know, these people are paying 60 PENCE for their games not 60 POUNDS. They are playing games on the loo and on the bus not parked up on their sofa. Which seems to be a slight oversight in EA's argument there. 60 more pence on top of 60 pence? Not so bad. 60 more pence on top of 60 pounds, well come now... (I think Ubi were the first to publicly kick around this idea a while back but EA seem to have raced ahead to be first again. Well done, EA. They will not be the last).

We've seen three fairly reasonably high profile games have alerts for their servers being switched off this week (Ngmoco), Zynga recently shut off another 12 games from their social network services. OK, so that's Free To Play, and the moment people stop spending ENOUGH money, not stop spending money, stop spending ENOUGH money they get turned off. That's the natural consequence of this sort of move. The ecosystem will only survive whilst it grows enough leaves on the moneytree. Adding microtransaction options means keeping a certain infrastructure in place to support those transactions. It means building the game around those microtransactions. It means that the same thing will eventually apply. When you stop spending enough money in Dead Space 3, we'll be moving from EA turns off Madden 11 multiplayer servers to EA shuts down a videogame. It might not be Dead Space 3, it might be Dead Space 4, Medal Of Honor 2013 but recent history shows us precisely what happens here in no uncertain terms.

Now seems like a very good time to be concerned about what they can and cannot do and how the language of their EULA effects us because there's a concerted move towards making games with a degree of planned obsolescence outside of F2P, outside of yearly sports franchises and attempts at making this normal. And of course, EULAs and your behaviour will all be expected to fit to preserve the microtransactions as D3 expects for the RMA and conveniently, as does EA for the new SimCity.

[gundato]

And others don't. But it's being shoehorned into every game out there and it's not because "people want it", it's because it allows the publisher or dev to force you into a state of always online.

Look at D3, obviously built around the AH and requires people to play online all the time. D2 had a single player mode that didn't require log ins or a connection to a server and I don't recall in my years of playing it thinking "man I wish this game had score points at arbitrary checkpoints to tell me how good I am"

Are you going to say that EA are actually telling us people are asking, demanding for microtransations in Dead Space 3?

So because you can cite an example of a screw-up (that seems to be acknowledged by much of the industry), then things are horribly wrong?

You don't need an always-on internet connection to have achievements linked to an online profile gundato.

Correct. But you do have to connect online at some point to synchronize. Beyond that, it is just a matter of if the devs/publishers see a point making a special version (for people who refuse to join the community) that NEVER signs in. And most don't.

My reason for bringing up Dead Space 3 is that it, a $60 game is going to include micro-transactions for upgrading your weapons at a faster rate. This is being done because mobile gamers expect it.Now, you and I know that's BS. It's being shoe horned in off the back of a straw man argument that all mobile gamers want are endless microtransactions. So they might not seem part of the issue, but they're going to be sooner than we might like.

The same thing happened with achievements and now they're considered a requirement of gaming. As Vicious says, you don't even need to be online to earn them, just to "sync" it back up.

As for the modding - again, it's already in place in other sites (Nexus was around much longer).
Cloud syncing save files is nice - but that's Steam and not the devs doing that so it can't really be used as a defence for why licensing is good.

But nobody (but EA :p) was arguing that people are asking for microtransactions

And there's no right for a company that says they get to keep both the money and the merchandise from the customer who paid for it. How can the customer compromise when the service provider holds all the cards, and is slowly ensuring more and more games require it's use to run? Steam even has a legion of gamers actually demanding games use Steamworks. "Give me DRM or give me death!" Wasn't that long ago that it was just optional.

I don't do, nor care for multiplayer, so I won't bother fighting on that rocky ground.

Drake however pointed out the "awkward" truth though. People ARE asking for Steamworks. Why? Cloud saving, achievements, steam workshop, reliable DLC store, etc. And THAT is why most singleplayer games these days are online. Not "always online", but still with a firmly bonded and not easily detached online aspect.

[Jesus_Phish]

One screw up doesn't mean things are horribly wrong, but the matter stands that there is no reason I or anyone else should ever find themselves locked out because of a requirement to connect to a server to play single player. Your defence of "single player" vs "offline single player" is you defending something that only now exists because it was put in place, not because we wanted it, but because they (devs, pubs, steam) wanted it.

Every single one of your points on syncing, cloud, achievements, dlc, modding etc etc, are all great aspects of Steam and the community we have now. But where they all fall down is that not one of them should be forced on a player who doesn't want them. Every one of them can be accessed by a player choosing to connect to the service if they choose to do so. What we have at the moment is everyone is forced to connect because some would choose to do so. Not one of those great benefits of Steam is mandatory to a single player game. Not a single one. The same people who are asking for these features are going to be the same ones who post on Ubisoft and Steams forums that "OMG I CAN'T PLAY FAR CRY 3 BECAUSE SERVERS ARE DOWN??? NEVER BUYING FROM EITHER AGAIN!!!".


And as Drake mentioned, Ubi mentioned using microtransactions before EA did, EA just got a game out first that shoehorned it in.

[gundato]

One screw up doesn't mean things are horribly wrong, but the matter stands that there is no reason I or anyone else should ever find themselves locked out because of a requirement to connect to a server to play single player. Your defence of "single player" vs "offline single player" is you defending something that only now exists because it was put in place, not because we wanted it, but because they (devs, pubs, steam) wanted it.

Initially, yes. But gamers "as a whole" seem to like them now.

Every single one of your points on syncing, cloud, achievements, dlc, modding etc etc, are all great aspects of Steam and the community we have now. But where they all fall down is that not one of them should be forced on a player who doesn't want them.

You msised a bit, what that SHOULD say is "But where they all fall down is that not one of them should be forced on a player who doesn't want them but still wants to buy new releases and all the latest AAA games"

Which boils down to: If you don't want the game, don't buy it. But just because there is a vocal group who dislikes the concept doesn't mean development costs should increase and support costs should increase drastically (at least two versions will have to be maintained) just so that people don't have to use Steam or Origin or whatever.

A growing number of gamers are getting a bit alienated by all the ultra-violence (myself included, actually). All the popular AAA games are ultra-violent. So should some form of regulatory body say "No. You can't do that. Yes, you are selling these like hot cakes and gamers keep asking for more, but you should not force this upon any player who doesn't want them but still wants to buy new AAA games"

"OMG I CAN'T PLAY FAR CRY 3 BECAUSE SERVERS ARE DOWN??? NEVER BUYING FROM EITHER AGAIN!!!".

And people bitch when they get a virus and Windows blue screens, so we might as well refuse to have any Windows games, right?
Occasionally the internet goes bye bye, so NO multiplayer only games should ever be made. Bye bye Team Fortress 2 and Counter-strike, some people will complain on the forums!

And as Drake mentioned, Ubi mentioned using microtransactions before EA did, EA just got a game out first that shoehorned it in.

And time will tell if it works. I know that I won't partake in them until I see something I want (same as I did with Oblivion's DLC and skipping horse armor but grabbing the one with Mehrune's Razor).


Also, we keep bashing the publishers, but the vast majority of (successful) indie games are embracing steam and the like. Why? Because it gives them all the services that "gamers want" without putting any burden on them. And it makes damned certain that they know what version of a game someone has when tech support time comes around.
Yes, there are some games that are getting "DRM-free" releases and the like, but those are still the exception, not the rule.

[hamster]

Actually, it kind of us. 60 bucks to rent just about ANYTHING for upward of four or five years (probably closer to 1-2 decades at the rate things are going) is a DAMNED good deal.

But if it would make everyone happier from a "legal" standpoint, I am sure EA would love to charge you a monthly fee to play Mass Effect :p

It's a terrible deal because you've formulated it incorrectly: you are paying $60 to rent a game for an indeterminate amount of time. The DD can cut you off anytime it wants. That may be a hundred years later or a day later. You wouldn't know.And um, if they wanted to do rental, they would do rental. Sorta like those shops that rent DVDs. Some of them rent games too.

So other than providing a service? Whether you like it or not, authentication, achievements, stats, and streaming of content ARE a service.
And I would like to see your CD synchronize with an achievement server and automatically update stuff without some additional service :p

It's unnecessary, and given the choice between owning a game forever vs. paying the same price to rent the game for an unspecified time specified by the DD at their full discretion, anybody with half a brain would choose the former, rather than the latter.

And if they start getting too specific, people throw hissy fits and pretend they are pure evil. It is a "damned if you do, damned if you dont" case.

Ridiculous. They can cut you off for any reason, do you understand?

So again, we should be paying monthly fees to keep it "legal"? Because increasingly, that looks like the only way to make most people accept that they don't OWN the software, and instead just have purchased the privelage of using it.

Sure, or they can sell games without restrictions that purportedly entitle them to essentially give nothing in return for your money. Something as simple as specifying that the agreement for each game can only be terminated by the DD upon the occurrence of: bankruptcy or a similar proceeding; a material breach of the terms of service i.e. stuff involving reverse engineering or the use of illegal programs; mutual consent.

The problem is that DD is DIFFERENT. So not all existing stuff maps perfectly. But if people can avoid screaming "That is slightly different, irrelevant!" for a moment, consider a food court/cafeteria style restaurant.
You go up, you get the food you want, you pay. You can stay as long as you want while you eat. Hell, you can stay there for a few hours afterward and they probably won't care too much. But if you make a fuss or they shut down for the night/forever, you have to leave.

Now let's say that you are thrown out for being an asshole. All your food is on their plates and you were using their silverware, so they have to take that away. And unfortunately, you don't have a plate or silverware with you so you can't realy take your un-eaten pork chop.

Like I said, it isn't a perfect mapping (and is mostly a thought exercise that I am sure people will refuse to acknowledge because it isn't exactly the same thing :p), but it does provide a precedent for this kind of stuff. In fact, a precedent that most people wouldn't take too much issue with.

Inapplicable, because you've assumed the patron has kicked up a fuss. A more applicable scenario: the restaurant is entitled to kick you out for whatever reason it sees fit.

[Jesus_Phish]

Indie devs embrace steam because it gets their games in front of a bigger user base than they could ever hope for. Not because Steam is making it easier for them to include things like achievements (which if they weren't on steam wouldn't actually be an issue).

I want the game, not the services it's being shovelled with. I'm a gamer, not a servicer (high-ohhh!).

Why would devs have to maintain a steam version and a non-steam version? They just have to maintain the steam version, it's up to the end user to log into the service when and if they want to update their game. By all means stick all your updates on steam and make people use the service to update the game, don't make them use the service to simply play the game.

That's what this boils down to and maybe it's being lost, but our games are being caught up in a service that's being forced on us. So again, I want the game. I don't care so much for the service. They shouldn't be only available in a bundle just because some people do want them that way.

[gundato]

Ridiculous. They can cut you off for any reason, do you understand?

Yes. I do. Do YOU understand what that means?

It means that they still want you as a customer and are going to do whatever they can to keep taking your money, but if you prove too much of a problem they reserve the right to "cut you off".

Inapplicable, because you've assumed the patron has kicked up a fuss. A more applicable scenario: the restaurant is entitled to kick you out for whatever reason it sees fit.

Except they are.

Seriously, read this. http://www.legalmatch.com/law-librar...e-service.html

In a nutshell: They reserve the right to kick you out for any reason that is not considered illegal discrimination (so race, religion, orientation, etc). And rather than list every concievable reason (and then dealing with smartass assholes who say "But that isn't on the list so lick my balls") they just have a general rule.

As I explained earlier in the thread (keep reading, you'll probably notice it in a few more posts :p), the whole "we reserve the right to refuse service for any reason" is a general catchall that you make people agree to ahead of time. In practice, you have an internal list that you update to let employees know when they can and can't refuse service. This way you don't have to do what Steam did a while back and make people accept a new agreement (which is REALLY bad PR and is of even questionabler legality).

The agreement works on the principle that the customer who knowingly reads what they agree to are probably smart enough to realize that it is in the producer's best interest to NOT refuse service for stupid reasons. So you have an implicit trust where the consumer says "Okay, but don't be a dick" and the producer says "Just so long as you give me money."

[gundato]

I want the game, not the services it's being shovelled with. I'm a gamer, not a servicer (high-ohhh!).

That's not what you said last night. Or was that all a lie to get a free dinner? YOU BASTARD!!!!!

Why would devs have to maintain a steam version and a non-steam version? They just have to maintain the steam version, it's up to the end user to log into the service when and if they want to update their game. By all means stick all your updates on steam and make people use the service to update the game, don't make them use the service to simply play the game.

At the very least, you need to make two builds. One with steamworks enabled and one without steamworks enabled.

Or are you saying that Valve needs to add an optional offline mode (that actually works :p)? I agree they do (not for this, but so that I can more easily play XCOM when traveling), but I don't see why they should. It doesn't benefit them, and it makes things even easier for the pirates (you wouldn't even NEED a crack anymore). And yes, DRM is of dubious benefit in the war on piracy, but it makes publishers happy. And happy publishers don't experiment with Starforce. You don't support Starforce, now do you? :p

That's what this boils down to and maybe it's being lost, but our games are being caught up in a service that's being forced on us. So again, I want the game. I don't care so much for the service. They shouldn't be only available in a bundle just because some people do want them that way.

But its a service we have accepted.

Was it originally forced upon us? Of course. But it was done in such a manner that the benefits outweighed the costs for "most" gamers.

Hell, there is a reason why just about every single KS for a game includes an FAQ like "Will you have Steam support?". Because people WANT Steam support. Maybe you don't (I sure do :p), but I think it is safer to say that the people who want Steam/something like Steam are probably the majority at this point.

[hamster]

Yes. I do. Do YOU understand what that means?

It means that they still want you as a customer and are going to do whatever they can to keep taking your money, but if you prove too much of a problem they reserve the right to "cut you off".

No, it means they can do whatever the hell they want (purportedly that is, it's probably unenforceable).

Except they are.

Seriously, read this. http://www.legalmatch.com/law-librar...e-service.html

In a nutshell: They reserve the right to kick you out for any reason that is not considered illegal discrimination (so race, religion, orientation, etc). And rather than list every concievable reason (and then dealing with smartass assholes who say "But that isn't on the list so lick my balls") they just have a general rule.

As I explained earlier in the thread (keep reading, you'll probably notice it in a few more posts :p), the whole "we reserve the right to refuse service for any reason" is a general catchall that you make people agree to ahead of time. In practice, you have an internal list that you update to let employees know when they can and can't refuse service. This way you don't have to do what Steam did a while back and make people accept a new agreement (which is REALLY bad PR and is of even questionabler legality).

Can you not just google stuff? This "right to refuse" you linked to is in relation to refusing patronage before you have paid. Generally speaking, a restaurant is not entitled to refuse patronage because in contract law, by opening shop and displaying their menu, they are presenting an offer. Should the potential patron accept the offer by paying, the shop must render service. Note also that the exceptions you linked to relate to common sense stuff and really the article is more about the limitations to the restaurant's right to refuse service on constitutional grounds.

[gundato]

Can you not just google stuff? This "right to refuse" you linked to is in relation to refusing patronage before you have paid. Generally speaking, a restaurant is not entitled to refuse patronage because in contract law, by opening shop and displaying their menu, they are presenting an offer. Should the potential patron accept the offer by paying, the shop must render service. Note also that the exceptions you linked to relate to common sense stuff and really the article is more about the limitations to the restaurant's right to refuse service on constitutional grounds.

Sort of like how there are restrictions on the right to refuse service thingie that EULAs poop out?

But yes, you are right. THe limitations of such a blanket claim ARE "common sense" stuff. And yet I still decided to get a half-assed reference :p

[hamster]

Sort of like how there are restrictions on the right to refuse service thingie that EULAs poop out?

But yes, you are right. THe limitations of such a blanket claim ARE "common sense" stuff. And yet I still decided to get a half-assed reference :p

No no no you're mistaken. The article you linked to describes the situation where a restaurant refuses to take your money. This is a completely different situation to them taking your money, not coming up with the food that you ordered and then kicking you out.

So sorta like going to Walmart for a game. You grab a game, take out your money to pay but the guy manning the counter tells you to screw off because they don't do business with people like you. That's refusal of service.

[Vicious]

Correct. But you do have to connect online at some point to synchronize. Beyond that, it is just a matter of if the devs/publishers see a point making a special version (for people who refuse to join the community) that NEVER signs in. And most don't.

You argued that always online is required for achievements (and etc). You're now somehow saying that developers have to make a special version of a game that never requires an internet connection except.... everyone single xbox 360 game that features achievements features them regardless of internet connection.

In fact, my xbox live account was originally a local non-live account for 4 years with hundred of achievements that never once connected to the internet but when I finally did (and converted my account), the achievements came with it.


Waffle? Waffle.

[gundato]

No no no you're mistaken. The article you linked to describes the situation where a restaurant refuses to take your money. This is a completely different situation to them taking your money, not coming up with the food that you ordered and then kicking you out.

So sorta like going to Walmart for a game. You grab a game, take out your money to pay but the guy manning the counter tells you to screw off because they don't do business with people like you. That's refusal of service.

So sort of like how most of the major retail chains have policies to not sell M-rated games to children without ID?

And here is the thing: The concept of DD and our "rights" are still an unknown quantity. The way the (American) legal system "works" (and believe me, I use that term VERY loosely) is that you handle unknown quantities by citing similar cases (establishing precedent).

So let's just go over the precedent that has been established:

Any business reserves the right to refuse service to anyone so long as it does not violate any discriminatory acts: True
Any business reserves the right to throw someone out/refuse to continue service if they become problematic: True, although I can't be arsed to look up the definition of "problematic" in this context, but I think we can all agree on "Making other customers deeply uncomfortable" and "Screaming hatespeech" as being fair examples.
Depending on the terms of your agreement, they may or may not have to refund you your money: This boils down to the "it is a lease with a one-time fee" aspect. This is the harder spot to narrow down (assuming we ignore the fact that we all agreed to this, at which point it is already resolved :p), but that is why I brought up the examples of F2P terminating accounts or someone being banned from a gym they have a "lifetime membership" to.

Now, all of those are slightly different, but they all establish a precedent for the current status quo as being "legal".

Also hamster: You DO realize they can still throw you out after you have paid, right? IF you don't believe me, start screaming hatespeech in a food court or something and see how fast they throw your ass out (even if you already paid for your chalupa).

[gundato]

You argued that always online is required for achievements (and etc). You're now somehow saying that developers have to make a special version of a game that never requires an internet connection except.... everyone single xbox 360 game that features achievements features them regardless of internet connection.

In fact, my xbox live account was originally a local non-live account for 4 years with hundred of achievements that never once connected to the internet but when I finally did (and converted my account), the achievements came with it.


Waffle? Waffle.

I NEVER argued that "always online" is required for anything. Other people argued that for me in a straw man.

I said that having achievements that sync with an online server means that your game is no longer an "offline" game. There ARE more than two spots on the continuum between offline and "always online" you know.

And I specifically argued that once you start having online achievements, DLC services, all the steam overlay goodness, cloud saving, etc, you are turning the "offline" game into an "online" one, even if it is SP. Thus, terminating the service for those online features kind of gimps the game.


As I even mentioned regarding consoles: Consoles are still inherently offline, if only because of the heavy reliance on retail still. PC gaming is inherently online these days due to the heavy reliance on DD services.