Gov't Regulation for Games Discussion- DLC related

AladainAF

AladainAF

Best Rabbit
<Gold Donor>
12,861
30,811
Palum said:
No, common law with a modern understanding of digital products. If you buy a DVD, you do not own rights to the core IP. You have a piece of personal property which contains a digital copy of a movie and the license for personal use (viewing). However, no such title to the copy exists for digital purchases by default rather than by express written agreement. That's a problem.
Click to expand...

You're comparing a piece of tangible property (a physical DVD disc) and complaining there's no digital equivalent in the same license.

This does not make sense for two reasons:

First and foremost (@Cad correct me if I'm wrong here) you are in fact allowed to make one digital copy for backup purposes. And secondly, rules that govern tangible property differ from intangible property. It makes perfect sense why these would not go hand in hand with each other. What you appear to be implying is that if you buy a digital copy of a game on steam, you better be able to get the game game on the PS4, XBox 360, etc. Afterall, they are all digital copies of the same thing, right? But that makes no sense.

Unless I'm misunderstanding your position, and I apologize if I do.
 
AladainAF

AladainAF

Best Rabbit
<Gold Donor>
12,861
30,811
zombiewizardhawk said:
Is the availability of mtx an act of predatory gaming? If someone decides to create 15 league of legends accounts and buy 100% of the available content on all 15 accounts, is that the fault of a predatory gaming company? If I decide to spend $300,000.00 buying stash tabs on PoE is that my fault or are they being predatory? Is farmville guilty of predatory gaming because some kid stole his moms credit card and spent $1400 (because Vaclav linked that story as an example of something the government needed to stop)?
Click to expand...

No. I've already explained this. It's about modifying the game, and creating artifical walls on a customized basis based on your spending, to use social engineering against you.

Using an old example, let's assume you bought a horror movie for $20 that you REALLY wanted to watch. It was like something you really wanted to watch, badly. When you bought it, there were no refunds, but you didn't care you bought it anyway. When you put in you got the movie, but all the gore was censored, but could be unlocked with $1 DLC. This is predatory. Because a.) They didn't tell you this in the first place, b.) the expectation being a horror movie was that gore was part of the deal, and c.) They have social engineered you -- you are much more likely to go ahead and spend just $1 additional to watch the movie with the gore DLC rather than throw $20 in the trash and get nothing at all.

This is how it works. It's a very specific thing. You keep bringing up these differing examples, and throwing gambling into the mix where these things are crossed and (admittedly) I'm having trouble responding accurately I think.

I've already agreed with you that all the shady behind the scenes stuff is no good and that actual gambling (ie being able to sell your rng boxes for real money ala CS:GO with potentially big rewards) should probably be regulated the same way any other actual gambling (where you can make money) is regulated, by requiring the person to be 18 years old to do it. Unfortunately it's almost impossible to actually prevent a determined individual who is under the age of 18 from bypassing systems online.
Click to expand...

Sure, absolutely. Gambling is rather broad though. I'm sure there can be a very convincing argument that loot drops that are tradeable from mobs in MMOs can be considered a form of gambling. If it ever went to court, though, it would probably be very easy to convince a jury that player skill ultimately obtained the item. But you never know. Point it, its very broad.

Predatory gaming, however, is very specific. There are very specific things that exist in games like this and do not exist in others that do not.

Diablo 3 was a good example of predatory gaming, but it did a poor job of balance to truly "hook" the player - but they had features in place for it. Everyone in their right mind knows full well that Inferno was neigh impossible unless you bought into the RMAH with a perfect set of gear, and even then it was hard as fuck. Legendaries drop rate was insanely bad, and everything sucked that dropped. You might grind for 100 hours to maybe get one piece of loot that could really help you, and maybe 1-2 other things to put on the RMAH. People forget about stupid shit like the act 2 resplendent chest - where people just ran to a chest and opened it and looted and died. Rinse/repeat. Because it was so bad it wasn't even worth playing the game. The game was completely designed around the RMAH. When they removed the RMAH the game ceased to become a predatory gaming style game, and lo and behold it actually became fun. Imagine that.
 
Palum

Palum

what Suineg set it to
23,361
33,428
AladainAF said:
You're comparing a piece of tangible property (a physical DVD disc) and complaining there's no digital equivalent in the same license.

This does not make sense for two reasons:

First and foremost (@Cad correct me if I'm wrong here) you are in fact allowed to make one digital copy for backup purposes. And secondly, rules that govern tangible property differ from intangible property. It makes perfect sense why these would not go hand in hand with each other. What you appear to be implying is that if you buy a digital copy of a game on steam, you better be able to get the game game on the PS4, XBox 360, etc. Afterall, they are all digital copies of the same thing, right? But that makes no sense.

Unless I'm misunderstanding your position, and I apologize if I do.
Click to expand...

Yes, you do misunderstand. My point is simply that we have now reached a point where we have commodified digital objects. Much like when burgeoning societies in the late Renaissance era contemplated and refined the idea of intellectual property through to today to give tangibility and structure with legal definition to IP. Before IP became an understood entity, I'm sure people used the same logic. "Well it's not grain, so who cares if you steal it." In the same vein, we have now entered a time period where as a species we are able to create digital worlds and ecosystems and sell purely digital 'things' for currency backed on the same fiat that purchases everything from houses to aircraft carriers. What we have now is an incomplete understanding of 'digital goods' based on an antiquated and shortsighted worldview, basically a strained application of IP law and 'licensing' which itself a strained interpretation of ancient common law for physical goods stretched to novel conceptualizations of human experience.

My point is that digital goods, sold within an ecosystem that provides humans sensory expression of said goods (sight, sound, eventually perhaps smell and touch), are NOT the same as IP and should be categorized differently. It should be held to many of the same standards as physical consumer goods, including implied warranties, gambling regulations, and yes as it is already in many states, taxation. In essence, digital goods are in many ways a manifestation of reality just as any physical good, only they are constrained within a particular service or ecosystem where they can be expressed for human senses.

You are the person that does all the second life shit right? So what happens if the company decides fuck you, I'm taking your particular property and auctioning it off. Do you think they should be able to do that because they 'just licensed it to you'?

Simply put, these goods should face the same scrutiny that any consumer product should. If I sell an automobile, I am bound to warranty its utility and useful purpose and in many cases am required by each state to ensure it operates as intended and for a certain period of time (usually a few months). If I operate a digital world, why should I not be held to that same standard if I sell a digital automobile? If I purchase an RX-7 in a racing game and it does not function (I cannot drive it), say it causes the game to crash, should it be legal for the publisher to refuse my refund because they say "Sorry you were just buying access to licensed content and we provide no refunds. No eta on that fix by the way."? I argue there is not.

It may seem silly if you only view this through the lens of games, but what about in 40 years when we are all dying having purchased tons of objects and services via digital means? If I purchase a DLC for my autodriving car to make it have RGB cabin lighting and better stabilization on the suspension, and I die and will the car to a family member, should the company be able to say "well sorry, that license is not transferable because of the shrinkwrap EULA he couldn't even read before opening the nonreturnable software package even though he never signed a contract so as the new owner you'll have to purchase the luxury commute package again"? GM has already tried to do this in the courts and it's not going away.
 
goishen

goishen

Macho Ma'am
3,567
14,612
zombiewizardhawk said:
What exactly have I said that is crazy, or can you just drop unsubstantiated 1 liners to try to argue your case?

What do you think the government should regulate in relation to video games?
Click to expand...

It's nothing that you've said, it's more of a feeling that I get from you. Gubbermint bad, is the feeling that I get from you. Water, food, drugs, all the way down to the fucking air you breathe. You can thank the government for all of those.

I don't want the government to do anything in relation to video games. I want the video game companies to regulate themselves. Barring that however, I see no other way to get their greedy little fingers out of MTX/P2W other than the government. And before you say, "Well, what about X game?" All of them. Every fucking one. Now, I'm more than happy to let bygones be bygones, and to even let the MTX for cosmetic shit slide, if they do it themselves. Otherwise, it's gonna be My Little Pony simulator brought to you by the US Government.

EDIT : Forgot to add : I would've figured that you would have gotten all of this by now. But apparently your meth addled brain spends so much time railing against the gubbermint that you can't see it. Go shake the pillars of heaven while you're at it. See how far that gets you.
 
Last edited:
AladainAF

AladainAF

Best Rabbit
<Gold Donor>
12,861
30,811
Palum said:
Yes, you do misunderstand. My point is simply that we have now reached a point where we have commodified digital objects.
Click to expand...

But what difference does it make that its digital? It's still something you created as the programmer, designer, etc. It's still your IP. And you have a right to do as you wish with that IP, within the confines of the law. Now, when some things start running counter to the law, or become such an issue as such where congress feels the need to intervene, that's another issue. But until then, you're free to do as you wish with what you made. Its your creation.

Much like when burgeoning societies in the late Renaissance era contemplated and refined the idea of intellectual property through to today to give tangibility and structure with legal definition to IP. Before IP became an understood entity, I'm sure people used the same logic. "Well it's not grain, so who cares if you steal it." In the same vein, we have now entered a time period where as a species we are able to create digital worlds and ecosystems and sell purely digital 'things' for currency backed on the same fiat that purchases everything from houses to aircraft carriers. What we have now is an incomplete understanding of 'digital goods' based on an antiquated and shortsighted worldview, basically a strained application of IP law and 'licensing' which itself a strained interpretation of ancient common law for physical goods stretched to novel conceptualizations of human experience.
Click to expand...

I can actually agree with you here. :)

My point is that digital goods, sold within an ecosystem that provides humans sensory expression of said goods (sight, sound, eventually perhaps smell and touch), are NOT the same as IP and should be categorized differently. It should be held to many of the same standards as physical consumer goods, including implied warranties, gambling regulations, and yes as it is already in many states, taxation.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I think you're misunderstanding physical goods here. I believe this is the disconnect. If I create a slot machine for your casino, I have every right to install it myself. Not allow you to manage it, and simply lease it to you, yet still call it a "sale". I can put a host of restrictions on said machine, such as telling you where you may and may not put it (i.e. don't put next to video poker). The more popular my brand, the tighter the restrictions.

In essence, digital goods are in many ways a manifestation of reality just as any physical good, only they are constrained within a particular service or ecosystem where they can be expressed for human senses.
Click to expand...

Yes, but they are far easier to duplicate than a physical good.

You are the person that does all the second life shit right? So what happens if the company decides fuck you, I'm taking your particular property and auctioning it off. Do you think they should be able to do that because they 'just licensed it to you'?
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. In fact, the only reason Second Life works is because the creators own the content. In fact, I have my own End User License Agreements with my own products, and you can bet your ass I make them INCREDIBLY restrictive.

2. GRANT OF LICENSE

Subject to this Agreement and its terms and conditions, Company hereby grants Customer a nonexclusive, non-transferable, limited, and revocable right and license to use one (1) copy of the Licensed Software for use as an Operator for gameplay on a server belonging to Linden Research Inc. or its designee in conjunction with the multiplayer online role-playing environment known as Second Life. Your license rights are subject to your compliance with this Agreement. The term of your license under this Agreement shall commence on the date that you install or otherwise use the Licensed Software and ends on the earlier date of either your disposal of the Licensed Software or the termination of this Agreement (see below). The Licensed Software is licensed, not sold, to you, and you hereby acknowledge that no title or ownership in the Licensed Software is being transferred or assigned and this Agreement should not be construed as a sale of any rights in the Licensed Software. Company retains all right, title, and interest to the Software, including, but not limited to, all copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, trade names, proprietary rights, patents, titles, computer codes, audiovisual effects, themes, characters, character names, stories, dialog, settings, artwork, sounds effects, musical works, and moral rights. The Licensed Software is protected by U.S. copyright and trademark law and applicable laws and treaties throughout the world. THIS LICENSE COVERS ANY AND ALL OBJECTS, TEXTURES, SOUNDS, SCRIPTS, OR TEXT DOCUMENTS aka Notecards” which have been provided with the Licensed Software or for use in conjunction with the Licensed Software by Company. The Licensed Software may not be copied, reproduced, or distributed in any manner or medium, in whole or in part, without prior written consent from Company.

3. LICENSE CONDITIONS

3.01 Limitations.

No Reverse Engineering. Customer may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the Licensed Software, nor attempt in any other manner to obtain the source code nor encourage any other party to do the same.

No Modification. Customer may not modify, correct, adapt, translate, enhance or otherwise prepare derivative works or improvements of any Licensed Software in any way without written permission from Company;

No Separation of Components. The Licensed Software is licensed as a single product. Its component parts may not be separated or separately from the other parts.

No Rental. Customer may not rent or lease the Licensed Software to someone else.

No Transfer, Distribution or Duplication. Customer may not for any reason copy or transfer, distribute or duplicate the Licensed Software. Due to the nature of Second Life, Customer may not make backup copies of the Licensed Software, such backup copies are already produced by Linden Research, Inc.

No Illegal Activity. Customer may not use the Licensed Software in anyway which may be contrary to the Second Life Terms of Service or applicable law. Customer is SOLELY responsible for Customer’s actions, including the use of the Licensed Software and any legal ramifications as a result of using this Licensed Software. Customer will check with a legal advisor before using this Licensed Software. Further, Customer may not use the Licensed Software in any manner or for any purpose that infringes, misappropriates or otherwise violates any Intellectual Property Right or other right of any Person, or that violates any applicable Law;

No Disruptive Activity. Customer will not harass any person or entities, most especially the Company and/or our affiliates in connection with the use of this Software. Customer will not send unsolicited messages to Second Life users in connection with the use of this Software or in connection with any virtual land space which contains active installations of this Software.

3.02 Limited Profit Splitting. Customer may engage in “profit splitting” or otherwise sharing the Licensed Software with someone else on the Second Life platform without prior written permission from Company. Such permission, if given, may be revoked at any time without notice or reason and Customer will cease such sharing at the time of revocation.

3.03 Internet Connection. The Licensed Software may require an internet connection to access internet-based features, authenticate the Licensed Software, or perform other functions.

3.04 Second Life Account. In order to use the Licensed Software or a software feature, or for certain features of the Licensed Software to operate properly, you are required to have and maintain a valid and active user account with a Second Life (“Third-Party Account”). If you do not maintain such accounts, then the Licensed Software may not operate or may cease to function properly, either in whole or in part. You are responsible for all use and the security of your User Accounts and any Third-Party Accounts that you use to access and use the Licensed Software.

3.05 Export Control. Customer agrees to not transport, export, or re-export (directly or indirectly) into any country forbidden to receive the Licensed Software by any U.S. export laws or regulations or U.S. economic sanctions or otherwise violate any laws or regulations, or the laws of the country in which the Licensed Software was obtained, which may be amended from time to time.

3.06 Security Measures. The Licensed Software may contain technological measures designed to prevent unauthorized or illegal use of the Licensed Software. Customer acknowledges and agrees that: (a) Company may use these and other lawful measures to verify Customer’s compliance with the terms of this Agreement and enforce Company’s rights, including all Intellectual Property Rights, in and to the Licensed Software; (b) Company may deny any individual access to and/or use of the Licensed Software if Company, in its reasonable discretion, believes that person’s use of the Licensed Software would violate any provision of this Agreement, regardless of whether Customer designated that person as an Authorized User; and (c) Company may collect, maintain, process and use diagnostic, technical, usage and related information, including information about Customer’s and its users’ use of the Licensed Software, that Company may gather periodically to improve the performance of the Licensed Software or develop improvements to the licensed software. This information will be treated in accordance with Company’s Privacy Policy.

I have spend thousands of dollars buying other creators IP, and hired a law firm to handle those acquisitions. Linden Lab, the owner of Second Life, absolutely cannot "fuck me over" like that. The extent of what they can do is go out of business. That would fuck me over. But even in any kind of bankruptcy, the creators of that world are protected.

Simply put, these goods should face the same scrutiny that any consumer product should. If I sell an automobile, I am bound to warranty its utility and useful purpose and in many cases am required by each state to ensure it operates as intended and for a certain period of time (usually a few months).
Click to expand...

There are more issues on digital content though. It's just a different animal.

If I operate a digital world, why should I not be held to that same standard if I sell a digital automobile? If I purchase an RX-7 in a racing game and it does not function (I cannot drive it), say it causes the game to crash, should it be legal for the publisher to refuse my refund because they say "Sorry you were just buying access to licensed content and we provide no refunds. No eta on that fix by the way."? I argue there is not.
Click to expand...

That depends. Was the failure your fault? Were you overclocking your computer outside of the bounds of intels warranty which caused the game to fail? There are so many more factors at play than in physical real world property. And even so, most of that is covered in "act of god" clauses.

It may seem silly if you only view this through the lens of games, but what about in 40 years when we are all dying having purchased tons of objects and services via digital means? If I purchase a DLC for my autodriving car to make it have RGB cabin lighting and better stabilization on the suspension, and I die and will the car to a family member, should the company be able to say "well sorry, that license is not transferable because of the shrinkwrap EULA he couldn't even read before opening the nonreturnable software package even though he never signed a contract so as the new owner you'll have to purchase the luxury commute package again"? GM has already tried to do this in the courts and it's not going away.
Click to expand...

It depends. I suspect as the populace gets more educated, they will (hopefully) refuse to buy such restrictive things.
 
zombiewizardhawk

zombiewizardhawk

Potato del Grande
9,326
11,907
goishen said:
It's nothing that you've said, it's more of a feeling that I get from you. Gubbermint bad, is the feeling that I get from you. Water, food, drugs, all the way down to the fucking air you breathe. You can thank the government for all of those.

I don't want the government to do anything in relation to video games. I want the video game companies to regulate themselves. Barring that however, I see no other way to get their greedy little fingers out of MTX/P2W other than the government. And before you say, "Well, what about X game?" All of them. Every fucking one. Now, I'm more than happy to let bygones be bygones, and to even let the MTX for cosmetic shit slide, if they do it themselves. Otherwise, it's gonna be My Little Pony simulator brought to you by the US Government.

EDIT : Forgot to add : I would've figured that you would have gotten all of this by now. But apparently your meth addled brain spends so much time railing against the gubbermint that you can't see it. Go shake the pillars of heaven while you're at it. See how far that gets you.
Click to expand...

So you're firmly in the camp of "plz government stop the big meanies from trying to make more money from games by having optional mtx in them cause i don't like mtx waaaaaaah!" then? You can't muster up the miniscule amount of self discipline it requires to make the choice not to purchase a product that you don't find attractive as it is being sold?

AladainAF AladainAF the reason I keep somewhat tying everything together in my posts is because of responses like this. "The government needs to stop game companies from making mtx and p2w games" is his basic stance (as well as most of the people on this forum who hate dlc/mtx (he says he wants game companies to do it themselves but why the fuck would any sane business sacrifice massive profits, thus they aren't going to do it). I asked you about things like the farmville story because that was what someone else used as their justification for government regulation (also wanting the government to simply stop games from having mtx in any form "for the good of the children") etc. but I think they have somehow convinced themselves that the government can just waltz in and suddenly all their video game experiences will be as magical and amazing as the ones they had 20 years ago when they were barely (or not even) a teenager and game companies will no longer try to maximize profits.
 
Last edited:
  • 1Picard
Reactions: 1 user
AladainAF

AladainAF

Best Rabbit
<Gold Donor>
12,861
30,811
zombiewizardhawk said:
AladainAF AladainAF the reason I keep somewhat tying everything together in my posts is because of responses like this. "The government needs to stop game companies from making mtx and p2w games" is his basic stance (as well as most of the people on this forum who hate dlc/mtx (he says he wants game companies to do it themselves but why the fuck would any sane business sacrifice massive profits, thus they aren't going to do it). I asked you about things like the farmville story because that was what someone else used as their justification for government regulation (also wanting the government to simply stop games from having mtx in any form "for the good of the children") etc. but I think they have somehow convinced themselves that the government can just waltz in and suddenly all their video game experiences will be as magical and amazing as the ones they had 20 years ago when they were barely (or not even) a teenager and game companies will no longer try to maximize profits.
Click to expand...

My posts are (trying) to stick with the main two issues at hand. I think there's just some disagreements on what's predatory gaming. It's a very real problem.
 
zombiewizardhawk

zombiewizardhawk

Potato del Grande
9,326
11,907
I could see some things being bad in that regard but I feel like it is not easy to draw a line as to what should actually be prevented through regulations.

Since you mentioned Diablo 3... I don't feel like that is an example of gaming that should be regulated. I feel like that is an example of shit game design/balance. I put hundreds and hundreds of hours into D3 before they made changes to the balance of Inferno as well as after. The game became more fun and Inferno became playable long before the RMAH was removed from the game. They did not artificially seed the RMAH with perfectly rolled top end rares/legendaries that could actually handle the original Inferno content so they could milk money from players, especially not ones with stats that could not be achieved through playing the game at the time and even if they did I don't think the government should get involved there. There are plenty of real p2w/pay to avoid massive rng grinds/pay2bepretty style games out there that have been around for a long time without anyone crying for government regulations.

If a game company sells and mtx as "Buy this gun for $19.99 and you will 1shot anyone you hit" and then the gun does not 1 shot players that it hits, that should be regulated and it probably already does fall under false advertising/some other law. If a game company sells a game saying it's a multiplayer game but multiplayer is impossible, that should be regulated and i'm assuming already is. If a game uses matchmaking algorithms to match players based on some rating of their strength (whether it's lumping cash shop buyers vs total noobs who haven't spent a cent or keeping rmt players seperate from non rmt) I don't really see a problem with that, either, as far as government involvement should be concerned. That should just be handled by gamers being so upset with the product that the company flops.

Let's say I see a trailer for a movie. The couple 2 minute trailers are hilarious and have me cracking up. I decide to go spend $20 to watch the movie at the theater. Every part of the movie that I find funny in the slightest was contained in the trailers and I leave the theater disappointed. Is that predatory film making that should be regulated by the government?


As far as the gambling, we're already agreed that it should be regulated like other forms of gambling.
 
goishen

goishen

Macho Ma'am
3,567
14,612
zombiewizardhawk said:
So you're firmly in the camp of "plz government stop the big meanies from trying to make more money from games by having optional mtx in them cause i don't like mtx waaaaaaah!" then? You can't muster up the miniscule amount of self discipline it requires to make the choice not to purchase a product that you don't find attractive as it is being sold?
Click to expand...


I would doubly facepalm this if I could.

What the fuck did I say?
 
mkopec

mkopec

<Gold Donor>
25,389
37,457
And the holy crusade against EA continues, while the blizzard dick sucking continues as the most cherished game company ever while having one of the worst Pay to Win offenders, Hearhtstone. While free in beginning, sure, in order to play the meta you have to spend cash or go through a grind that is 10x worse than BF2 will ever be.
 
  • 2Solidarity
Reactions: 1 users
zombiewizardhawk

zombiewizardhawk

Potato del Grande
9,326
11,907
I mean... If all they do is make a new rating above M or whatever where you have to be 17 to buy the game with a rating that requires you to be 21... what the fuck is the point? To give lawmakers something to put on their resume? "Look guys, we DO do work!"
 
slippery

slippery

<Bronze Donator>
7,891
7,704
zombiewizardhawk said:
I mean... If all they do is make a new rating above M or whatever where you have to be 17 to buy the game with a rating that requires you to be 21... what the fuck is the point? To give lawmakers something to put on their resume? "Look guys, we DO do work!"
Click to expand...

I'm 32 now, I graduated high school at 17. That was right when cell phones started to be a thing, and no one in school got one. After I graduated Basic I tried to buy one, couldn't. Need someone to sign for me.

So yeah. Lots of shit like that doesn't make sense. Though while in military the stateside laws don't carry, we could get drinks (at least at 18, not sure if there was age) on base while deployed in Qatar.
 
Skanda

Skanda

I'm Amod too!
6,662
4,506

Mr Hawaii isn't backing down. He also mentions in that video that the ESA is already spreading the cash around to try and stop/slow this down.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: 1 users
You must log in or register to reply here.