this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2024
608 points (98.4% liked)

PC Gaming

8330 readers
670 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments.
  10. Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Sundial@lemm.ee 251 points 1 week ago (10 children)

Essentially, the new law will mean that storefronts like Steam will no longer be able to use terms such as “buy” or “purchase” when advertising a game that always requires an online connection. Since you won’t technically own the product and servers being taken offline would render the product useless, a different word will have to be used.

The official phrasing in the bill’s summary reads, it will “prohibit a seller of a digital good from advertising or offering for sale a digital good, as defined, to a purchaser with the terms buy, purchase, or any other term which a reasonable person would understand.”

That's actually a very good reason IMO.

[–] laughing_hard@lemmy.world 78 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'm waiting for something like this since forever. I hope other states and countries will follow. This is huge.

It's not only steam, but also Amazon, Apple, you name it.

Buy means buy, not "rent until we decide to render your product useless"!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] stupidcasey@lemmy.world 40 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (6 children)

Can’t wait to see what marketing BS replaces it.

My money is on Experience!

Or Activate!

Or Join!

Or Unlock!

You know something with an exclamation mark.

[–] kugmo@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 days ago

Don't care, I'm having a blast!

[–] zero_spelled_with_an_ecks@programming.dev 32 points 1 week ago (1 children)

"Add to your library" is my guess.

[–] stupidcasey@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

To long and no explanation mark, it would never work.

[–] Strawberry@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 1 week ago

Hopefully "license", since that's what it actually is

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Wait so if a game doesn’t not need online connection it can say buy?

That is such a huuuge advantage to indie devs that can let you own things.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 9 points 1 week ago

To be honest, it sounds like it would affect ALL digital products, not just those requiring an active online connection. Or at the very least even those with Steam DRM for verification.

[–] Sibbo@sopuli.xyz 7 points 1 week ago

I wonder if even without this law, one could claim false advertising against any subscription service that looks like a bit to own service.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] antlion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 117 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Not exactly accurate. The button can still say Buy. The law says that they have to get extra acknowledgment from the buyer that they actually mean license. So it will say buy, and then it will pop up and say you aren’t buying the game, only a license, and then you have to click ok I understand. More nags. What we really need is another license agreement to pop up that nobody reads.

[–] Comment105@lemm.ee 22 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

The EULA is a wall of text that means nothing to most people, just like the TOS. The CLA (California License Agreement) or whatever this will be called with be no different, unless they specifically demand a very short and to the point.

*"You are buying a game licence that can legally be revoked without providing a refund.

Ubisoft can revoke the game license at any time for any reason.

Ubisoft guarantees access to the license for 0 days."*

I have no expectation that it will be that clear and concise.

Edit: Looks like they have chosen not to discuss the language of the "clear expansion" at all. Likely because whoever wrote the law didn't know the subject they're regulating.

From the article:

The official phrasing in the bill’s summary reads, it will “prohibit a seller of a digital good from advertising or offering for sale a digital good, as defined, to a purchaser with the terms buy, purchase, or any other term which a reasonable person would understand.”

Alternatively, storefronts can clearly explain that you’re buying a license and that your purchase isn’t a permanent transaction, meaning the license can be revoked at any time by the issuer. The most important part of the bill states that passing it will be “ensuring that consumers have a full understanding of exactly what they have bought.”

It'll probably be a wall of text like maybe a big fat paragraph and a little vague line at the bottom, or somehow manage to be short but still vague enough to not discourage sales while just barely straddling the line of being acceptable to the Californians who might one day end up bothering to look at how this ends up going, if they don't forget to.

[–] antlion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I was alarmed most by part B:

(B)The seller provides to the consumer before executing each transaction a clear and conspicuous statement that does both of the following:

(i)States in plain language that buying or purchasing the digital good is a license.

(ii)Includes a hyperlink, QR code, or similar method to access the terms and conditions that provide full details on the license.

The way I’m reading that it’s just going to say something like: “Attention, you access to this game which can be revoked or abandoned at any time. For more information follow this link and read the license. Press here to continue your purchase.” Nobody will read it.

[–] Zoot@reddthat.com 5 points 1 week ago

Hopefully (fingers crossed) the blurb even saying "Revoked at will" will finally out people on edge

[–] sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip 93 points 1 week ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (20 children)

A while back I was discussing Ross Scott's 'Stop Killing Games' proposal in the EU, in some other lemmy thread.

If passed, that law would make it so you cannot make and sell a game that becomes unplayable after a person buys the game, or you have to refund the purchase of the game itself as well as all ingame purchases.

If gameplay itself is dependant on online servers, the game has to release a working version of the server code so it at least could be run by fans, or be refunded.

If it uses some kind of DRM that no longer works, it has to be stripped of this, or properly refunded.

Someone popped in and said 'well I think they should just make it more obvious that you're not buying a game, you're buying a temporary license.'

To which I said something like 'But all that does is highlight the problem without actually changing the situation.'

So, here we are with the American version of consumer protection: We're not actually doing any kind of regulation that would actually prevent the problem, we're just requiring some wordplay and allowing the problem to exist and proliferate.

All this does is make it so you can't say 'Buy' or 'Purchase' and probably have a red box somewhere that says something like 'You are acquiring a TEMPORARY license that may be revoked at any time for any reason.'

US gets a new content warning. EU is working toward actually stopping the bullshit.

EDIT: A few days after I posted this, Ross put out a video with more or less the same angle as I presented, that this solves nothing, changes nothing, and arguably actually makes it technically worse as this functionally acts as the government officially endorsing the status quo: You have no legal standing to contest your evaporating game, as it followed the rules and put a warning or changed some wording.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=T-9aXEbGNeo

[–] dharmacurious@slrpnk.net 35 points 1 week ago

Honestly, that really does track with how shit works in here.

"The orphan crushing machine may contain components known to the state of California to cause cancer"

And we're done! Fixed all the problems!

[–] Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de 19 points 1 week ago (2 children)

To which I said something like ‘But all that does is highlight the problem without actually changing the situation.’

I think the idea is, that the minimally invasive regulation only has to fix the information imbalance between producer and consumer. Then, once the consumer has all the information, they can make an informed racional market actor descision. That's supposed to price shitty rip offs out of the market eventually.

... yeah I don't believe it works either.

[–] sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 week ago (5 children)

It doesn't make any sense if the whole market is shitty rip offs.

In this case I'm not saying all games are bad, shitty games, but they are all shitty rip offs in the sense that they all legally can, and many do just suddenly deactivate, and you're not even compensated for this.

The whole fundamental legal trick the software industry has pulled is making everything into a license for an ongoing service, as opposed to a consumer good.

And the problem is that this is now infecting everything, expanding as much as possible into anything with a chip in it.

Even if the consumer is perfectly informed, it doesn't matter if the entire market is full of fundamentally unjust bullshit, as there aren't any alternatives.

All you get is consumers who are now informed that their digital goods can poof out of existence with no recourse.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (18 replies)
[–] Caligvla@lemmy.dbzer0.com 60 points 1 week ago (3 children)

The rise of the "acquire" button.

[–] Zorque@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Finally my years of learning to play Tongo pay off!

Full Consortium 😎

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] subterfuge@lemmy.world 39 points 1 week ago (2 children)
[–] atro_city@fedia.io 8 points 1 week ago

Fits well. Everything is a subscription nowadays.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Fester@lemm.ee 29 points 1 week ago (1 children)

There should be an exception: If they want to still say “buy” or fail to comply, they will need to refund the full original purchase price if they ever shut down the server.

Next do planned obsolescence and products that are designed to break a week after the warranty expires.

[–] Sibbo@sopuli.xyz 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Then they would need to pay everything back they ever earned if the company ever goes bankrupt. I imagine a bankrupt company doesn't have much to pay back.

[–] Fester@lemm.ee 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I think they’d do two things if they want to keep the buy button. 1) Not require always online connections to play, or properly remove the online requirement or convert to P2P in the case of multiplayer games if they want to end support, or 2) sell their server infrastructure to a third party.

I assume this law is to preempt demand for something similar to the EU’s “stop killing games” petition. It’s a way to say that consumers were made aware and agreed that their games are only temporary licenses, so they can’t demand refunds or continued support when the company wants to stop.

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 week ago

The 2 reasons you provide are actually why games that offer an offline mode functionality (more specifically that the seller cannot revoke access to after the transaction, which includes making the digital good available at the time of purchase for permanent offline download to an external storage source to be used without a connection to the internet) are exempted from needing to follow this law.

I don't think this is a preemption of the SKG campaign but actually one of the realistic goals of that campaign. I don't think the ability to rent software for a limited time is an issue, but tricking people into thinking they can use something they purchased forever, to have it unilaterally taken away due to 3rd party licensing, decommissioning servers or other excuse is the problem.

[–] x00za@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 1 week ago (6 children)

So it must be "Rent" now? Logically you still purchase a subscription. So this is a very weird solution.

A better solution would be that it has information on what you're buying. "You can use this even if the game is removed", "You can play this online and even without starting up Steam", "Dedicated servers will be released when the game is stopped", etc etc

[–] DebatableRaccoon@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 week ago

I think (see: hope) this is a stop-gap solution. It's at least better than the current implication of buying something and being able to keep it despite these companies knowing full well that the game will be gone in a much more permanent way the moment they flick the switch on the servers.

To paraphrase Ross Scott, it may be a bare minimum but it's at least nice to have it in writing just how fucked we consumers are.

[–] orcrist@lemm.ee 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Your counterexample, "purchase a subscription", actually undercuts the point you're trying to make. The goal is honesty here. If you are renting or subscribing, you want to know that up front, in big text, using the simplest possible word. That word is "RENT".

The issue about the lease business model being bad for society and consumers is also important, but it's complicated and different from basic truth in advertising.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] YourPrivatHater@ani.social 20 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

"Get" "Get now" "Aquire" "Access now" "Add to account" "license now"

This doesn't make any difference.

[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago

"Add to cart"

"Check out"

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] okamiueru@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago

Which is why I buy games on GoG whenever it's an option.

[–] TommySoda@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago

As a purchaser of many games online, that makes sense to me. Especially for younger people growing up with this kinda stuff it would be nice to differentiate the two.

[–] missingno@fedia.io 11 points 1 week ago

They'll just change the button from "Buy $59.99" to just "$59.99".

As much as I lament the fact that we can't just own things anymore, it's not like this legislation will change anything. Storefronts aren't going to drop their DRM just so they can use the word 'buy' again.

[–] atro_city@fedia.io 10 points 1 week ago

If https://www.stopkillinggames.com/ gets to go before the EU commission, this might even go much further.

[–] AndiLeudedadraussen@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

If you change what it is called, you dont have to change whats wrong with it.

[–] xnx@slrpnk.net 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Hopefully this pushes Valve to include drm free copies of games

[–] Takumidesh@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

Drm free doesn't necessarily change the license attached to it.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›