I have always believed emulation should be allowed for shut down MMORPG. Offer the game at cost to consumer to run or source code.
I am heavily invested in Microsoft digital games because it is cheaper to buy digital most times than 2 disc in a dual Xbox household. What happens if MS decides to get out of console market. Will I lose rights to access all of my games?
Imagine Steam is forced to shutdown. Should they be forced to give there gaming services to the public to at least access their game library or are they just gone?
This is what I'm getting at: it isn't a binary choice for Pubs or Devs to either shut the server down or lose all copyright/trademark protection. That's a false dichotomy used to push the idea that private server administrators are all scumbags trying to steal precious IPs from pubs/devs.
In fact, there's literally a legal agreement created specifically to give the parties other options: licensing agreements.
I'm a bit late to this thread (it seems to be a habit of late).
I totally support NCSoft in this case. They developed a product, sold it for awhile, and made a decision to terminate the product. Happens all the time in normal businesses.
However, this seems to be a clear case where the server code 'walked' away and ran in secret for some time. That is a clear case of piracy and theft of NCSoft's intellectual profit. Was it used for profit? Don't know, and that's pretty much immaterial anyway. There seems to have been theft, and that needs to be prosecuted.
Not so much for NCSoft's benefit; they did plenty wrong over the years. The future industry needs to know that the justice department is actually going to protect the investor's dollars from piracy and IT theft. Enough unpunished piracy, and there won't be any new investments into future games.
No matter how good a game COH was, or how much a person wants to play COH or any other game that has been shuttered again, that isn't a good enough reason to support piracy and theft. Play something else. I would encourage all forum participants here at MMORPG.com to resist the urge to partake in a pirated COH server.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
I have always believed emulation should be allowed for shut down MMORPG. Offer the game at cost to consumer to run or source code.
I am heavily invested in Microsoft digital games because it is cheaper to buy digital most times than 2 disc in a dual Xbox household. What happens if MS decides to get out of console market. Will I lose rights to access all of my games?
Imagine Steam is forced to shutdown. Should they be forced to give there gaming services to the public to at least access their game library or are they just gone?
This is what I'm getting at: it isn't a binary choice for Pubs or Devs to either shut the server down or lose all copyright/trademark protection. That's a false dichotomy used to push the idea that private server administrators are all scumbags trying to steal precious IPs from pubs/devs.
In fact, there's literally a legal agreement created specifically to give the parties other options: licensing agreements.
Nobody is saying lose copyright. If I pay for a game I should be able to play. Fine you shut down the service then I should be able to run my game at cost since it has been abandoned. This is not playere creating a new game off the IP. Just using the software they purchased.
Its so weird to see so many cheering for the "bad guys."
Perhaps playing video games is harmful after all.
NCSOFT are the bad guys, they have been for years
No, they are not the bad guys. They are a company trying to make money. They make products and want to sell them. When they can't make enough money for what they need they shut down projects and invest in more viable projects.
Players need to learn to put things in perspective.
If they think things last forever then they need to reassess. It's unfortunate that our favorite games might not be around in 5 years let alone 1 year but they are not doing this because we are part of a club.
They're attempting to make money off of CoH by not using it at all? And by paying lawyer fees anytime some gamers attempt to spin up a server to continue using their copies of the title?
That makes little sense. Doesn't seem to support your assertions.
Don't blame NCSoft for shutting it down. Would I blame them for wasting money on shutting down not-for-profit private servers for a game they've completely abandoned and is not playable AT ALL without such a server? Absolutely.
Doomcall about IP theft and virtue signal all you like, a private CoH server means jack shit to NCSoft's bottom line. That's the reality.
It's not about making money off it "yet."
Companies sometimes have things they sit on until the time they want to use it again.
Explain to me how a CoH private server would prevent NCSoft from funding the development of a new title based on the IP, or how said server would realistically hinder their ability to successfully market or sell said new title.
It's already a 15 year old game. If NCSoft employs a dev team that's really so incompetent that it can't persuade lovers of the IP to drop a decade and a half+ old game for a newer title to the point it cripples their ability to make money off a new title, they've got much larger problems than a damn private server containing a minuscule amount of gamers.
Yeah I get it and all good points but it is about brand integrity. That's what it is. Like it, don't like it, companies don't want other people running off with their IP and doing whatever to it.
Let's take one of my favorite youtube shows, "Adult Wednesday Adams."
Loved that show.
But she got a cease and desist order. Technically what she was doing was nothing more than spoofing the character and it shouldn't hurt any future works but there it is. Though, I think someone has put it up again.
If players create a CoH server and it suddenly garners drama for some reason or another, tainting the IP with "whatever" then that hurts their brand.
Companies don't want you to mess with their brands. And it doesn't matter that it's 15 years old or 30 years old.
As long as they retain the rights they can say that you can't use it because they threw a dart at the big decision board and it hit "sucks for you."
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
NCSoft would gain very little but the satisfaction of kicking down some hobbyists who toyed around with the junk they threw away. They will lose time, money, good will, PR, and legitimacy doing it, even in the best case scenario.
Well, we'll see. Because if they did win then EA Blizzard and whatever other companies have an interest in the outcome would rejoice.
Also, it's not like servers have never been shut down before. Like Blizzard shutting down those classic servers (which means there is precedent right?)
I'll also add that apparently they presented a cease and desist order for a Tabula Rasa private server so I don't really think they are shy about pressing their case.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I have always believed emulation should be allowed for shut down MMORPG. Offer the game at cost to consumer to run or source code.
I am heavily invested in Microsoft digital games because it is cheaper to buy digital most times than 2 disc in a dual Xbox household. What happens if MS decides to get out of console market. Will I lose rights to access all of my games?
Imagine Steam is forced to shutdown. Should they be forced to give there gaming services to the public to at least access their game library or are they just gone?
This is what I'm getting at: it isn't a binary choice for Pubs or Devs to either shut the server down or lose all copyright/trademark protection. That's a false dichotomy used to push the idea that private server administrators are all scumbags trying to steal precious IPs from pubs/devs.
In fact, there's literally a legal agreement created specifically to give the parties other options: licensing agreements.
Nobody is saying lose copyright. If I pay for a game I should be able to play. Fine you shut down the service then I should be able to run my game at cost since it has been abandoned. This is not playere creating a new game off the IP. Just using the software they purchased.
I'm pretty sure I payed for Win 95. It won't work today. Just because I bought a copy of Win 95 doesn't mean that Microsoft is still obligated to support it. If I tried to release a pirated version of Win 95 today, I would expect Microsoft (and their many, many lawyers) would have something to say about it.
The City of Heroes game you bought was a client version that allowed you to connect and process proprietary signals from their server. You couldn't buy a copy of that server then, nor now. They (NCSoft) decided it wasn't worth their time and effort to continue providing that service. Nowhere was it implied that you should be able to run your copy of the game past the date that the service was provided. So, your argument has a major fallacy -- you were never sold the right to operate the COH client indefinitely, only as long as the service was in operation.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
I have always believed emulation should be allowed for shut down MMORPG. Offer the game at cost to consumer to run or source code.
I am heavily invested in Microsoft digital games because it is cheaper to buy digital most times than 2 disc in a dual Xbox household. What happens if MS decides to get out of console market. Will I lose rights to access all of my games?
Imagine Steam is forced to shutdown. Should they be forced to give there gaming services to the public to at least access their game library or are they just gone?
This is what I'm getting at: it isn't a binary choice for Pubs or Devs to either shut the server down or lose all copyright/trademark protection. That's a false dichotomy used to push the idea that private server administrators are all scumbags trying to steal precious IPs from pubs/devs.
In fact, there's literally a legal agreement created specifically to give the parties other options: licensing agreements.
Nobody is saying lose copyright. If I pay for a game I should be able to play. Fine you shut down the service then I should be able to run my game at cost since it has been abandoned. This is not playere creating a new game off the IP. Just using the software they purchased.
I'm pretty sure I payed for Win 95. It won't work today. Just because I bought a copy of Win 95 doesn't mean that Microsoft is still obligated to support it. If I tried to release a pirated version of Win 95 today, I would expect Microsoft (and their many, many lawyers) would have something to say about it.
The City of Heroes game you bought was a client version that allowed you to connect and process proprietary signals from their server. You couldn't buy a copy of that server then, nor now. They (NCSoft) decided it wasn't worth their time and effort to continue providing that service. Nowhere was it implied that you should be able to run your copy of the game past the date that the service was provided. So, your argument has a major fallacy -- you were never sold the right to operate the COH client indefinitely, only as long as the service was in operation.
Nailed it, I couldn't think of an applicable analogy but yours is pretty spot on.
People have long failed to grasp when "buying" an "online" game you only have a right to play it as long as the "service" is available.
Could be 20 years, perhaps only 6 months, its a risk you take unless the game has an offline component, but few do these days.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I have always believed emulation should be allowed for shut down MMORPG. Offer the game at cost to consumer to run or source code.
I am heavily invested in Microsoft digital games because it is cheaper to buy digital most times than 2 disc in a dual Xbox household. What happens if MS decides to get out of console market. Will I lose rights to access all of my games?
Imagine Steam is forced to shutdown. Should they be forced to give there gaming services to the public to at least access their game library or are they just gone?
This is what I'm getting at: it isn't a binary choice for Pubs or Devs to either shut the server down or lose all copyright/trademark protection. That's a false dichotomy used to push the idea that private server administrators are all scumbags trying to steal precious IPs from pubs/devs.
In fact, there's literally a legal agreement created specifically to give the parties other options: licensing agreements.
Nobody is saying lose copyright. If I pay for a game I should be able to play. Fine you shut down the service then I should be able to run my game at cost since it has been abandoned. This is not playere creating a new game off the IP. Just using the software they purchased.
I'm pretty sure I payed for Win 95. It won't work today. Just because I bought a copy of Win 95 doesn't mean that Microsoft is still obligated to support it. If I tried to release a pirated version of Win 95 today, I would expect Microsoft (and their many, many lawyers) would have something to say about it.
The City of Heroes game you bought was a client version that allowed you to connect and process proprietary signals from their server. You couldn't buy a copy of that server then, nor now. They (NCSoft) decided it wasn't worth their time and effort to continue providing that service. Nowhere was it implied that you should be able to run your copy of the game past the date that the service was provided. So, your argument has a major fallacy -- you were never sold the right to operate the COH client indefinitely, only as long as the service was in operation.
Nailed it, I couldn't think of an applicable analogy but yours is pretty spot on.
People have long failed to grasp when "buying" an "online" game you only have a right to play it as long as the "service" is available.
Could be 20 years, perhaps only 6 months, its a risk you take unless the game has an offline component, but few do these days.
Nobody is ignorant of the law. Not everyone looks at the law with the eyes of a small child being dictated to by papa bear, though.
Nor are we not allowed to make a judgement call on publishers that actively avoId engaging with the fan project of an IP they aren't using.
EDIT- Those defending this also need to comment on how their blind acceptance contributes to the swing towards online-only GaaS. If you don't think part of the draw for gaming companies is that they get yo force you into sequels, instead of trying to tempt you into them by creating a sequel worthy of the name.... Well, you're just being naive.
Unless the private server gets massive, NCsoft will be throwing money into the wind fighting any that pop up (which many will now code is fully released)
There is a reason Blizzard, despite being a massive company, only bothers to fight a private server if it gets far too populated. And in fact, they haven't even gone after any in a while despite some really large classic servers out there. However whats more expensive? Letting some private servers run (many residing in countries that wouldn't give a sh! about ncsoft or blizzard) or going after every single mom and pop private server in the world and spending a buttload of cash fighting all of them?
Before EPIC store, steam pretty much killed a big portion of piracy. Why? Because they provided a product that made buying games a ton easier with a good quality service. EPIC of course is bringing piracy back, not gonna link anything against the rules, but massive piracy is happening in EPIC store only games.
However point is, provide a quality service and private servers die. Likely Blizzard is banking on their own classic WoW to kill the classic wow servers. One will argue "lol but they only play for free", but steam showed provide a way to easily get games WITH a great service and you'll do extremely well. There'll always be people that play "free", especially in nations with severe economic issues and terrible exchange rates (some places one single game is a years worth of average income), but overall provide a quality service and you don't need to worry about piracy or private servers.
Popular or not, piracy is theft and against quite a few US laws. It deserves some degree of prosecution. Certainly, the party/parties responsible for releasing the server code need to be addressed.
(For the record, I find NCSoft's actions to be totally unpredictable. They *may* take the 'only if it gets big enough' approach you suggest. But they *might* equally bankrupt themselves in a vindictive crusade chasing every single outbreak of a COH server. Or something in between.)
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
I have always believed emulation should be allowed for shut down MMORPG. Offer the game at cost to consumer to run or source code.
I am heavily invested in Microsoft digital games because it is cheaper to buy digital most times than 2 disc in a dual Xbox household. What happens if MS decides to get out of console market. Will I lose rights to access all of my games?
Imagine Steam is forced to shutdown. Should they be forced to give there gaming services to the public to at least access their game library or are they just gone?
This is what I'm getting at: it isn't a binary choice for Pubs or Devs to either shut the server down or lose all copyright/trademark protection. That's a false dichotomy used to push the idea that private server administrators are all scumbags trying to steal precious IPs from pubs/devs.
In fact, there's literally a legal agreement created specifically to give the parties other options: licensing agreements.
Nobody is saying lose copyright. If I pay for a game I should be able to play. Fine you shut down the service then I should be able to run my game at cost since it has been abandoned. This is not playere creating a new game off the IP. Just using the software they purchased.
I'm pretty sure I payed for Win 95. It won't work today. Just because I bought a copy of Win 95 doesn't mean that Microsoft is still obligated to support it. If I tried to release a pirated version of Win 95 today, I would expect Microsoft (and their many, many lawyers) would have something to say about it.
The City of Heroes game you bought was a client version that allowed you to connect and process proprietary signals from their server. You couldn't buy a copy of that server then, nor now. They (NCSoft) decided it wasn't worth their time and effort to continue providing that service. Nowhere was it implied that you should be able to run your copy of the game past the date that the service was provided. So, your argument has a major fallacy -- you were never sold the right to operate the COH client indefinitely, only as long as the service was in operation.
Nailed it, I couldn't think of an applicable analogy but yours is pretty spot on.
People have long failed to grasp when "buying" an "online" game you only have a right to play it as long as the "service" is available.
Could be 20 years, perhaps only 6 months, its a risk you take unless the game has an offline component, but few do these days.
That's actually a pretty poor analogy. Technically, if you have an old box with Win95 and old-school 32-bit games that won't run on 64-bit, you could still play them on your '95 junker. This was a common thing pre-GOG stores.
Old versions of Windows still function and you still own them. They just have no support and nothing new will run on them(browsers, etc., all have evolved since then).
I'm not really disagreeing with your point, though
I see emulators as the internet-battlefield version of marijuana. One day -- the same way that weed will be nationally legalized -- all of these "online games" developers will just make publicizing dead online games part of the standard practice... mainly for archiving purposes, if nothing else.
Now that online service is pretty much common amongst the majority of genres and platforms, I imagine some proper "what-if" standards will be put in place before long.
A decade from now, the issue of online games no longer being available post-termination will probably be laid to rest. That doesn't mean allowing you to steal all their source code, of course, but just basic server-hosting.
But, for now, you shouldn't touch their source code with a 300-foot pole unless you are some kind of masochist which wants legal trouble. Obviously, I'm referring to hosting servers and such. I mean, if you want a one-person server setup you host at home for yourself or local friends, go for it
I have always believed emulation should be allowed for shut down MMORPG. Offer the game at cost to consumer to run or source code.
I am heavily invested in Microsoft digital games because it is cheaper to buy digital most times than 2 disc in a dual Xbox household. What happens if MS decides to get out of console market. Will I lose rights to access all of my games?
Imagine Steam is forced to shutdown. Should they be forced to give there gaming services to the public to at least access their game library or are they just gone?
This is what I'm getting at: it isn't a binary choice for Pubs or Devs to either shut the server down or lose all copyright/trademark protection. That's a false dichotomy used to push the idea that private server administrators are all scumbags trying to steal precious IPs from pubs/devs.
In fact, there's literally a legal agreement created specifically to give the parties other options: licensing agreements.
Nobody is saying lose copyright. If I pay for a game I should be able to play. Fine you shut down the service then I should be able to run my game at cost since it has been abandoned. This is not playere creating a new game off the IP. Just using the software they purchased.
I'm pretty sure I payed for Win 95. It won't work today. Just because I bought a copy of Win 95 doesn't mean that Microsoft is still obligated to support it. If I tried to release a pirated version of Win 95 today, I would expect Microsoft (and their many, many lawyers) would have something to say about it.
The City of Heroes game you bought was a client version that allowed you to connect and process proprietary signals from their server. You couldn't buy a copy of that server then, nor now. They (NCSoft) decided it wasn't worth their time and effort to continue providing that service. Nowhere was it implied that you should be able to run your copy of the game past the date that the service was provided. So, your argument has a major fallacy -- you were never sold the right to operate the COH client indefinitely, only as long as the service was in operation.
Nailed it, I couldn't think of an applicable analogy but yours is pretty spot on.
People have long failed to grasp when "buying" an "online" game you only have a right to play it as long as the "service" is available.
Could be 20 years, perhaps only 6 months, its a risk you take unless the game has an offline component, but few do these days.
Nobody is ignorant of the law. Not everyone looks at the law with the eyes of a small child being dictated to by papa bear, though.
Nor are we not allowed to make a judgement call on publishers that actively avoId engaging with the fan project of an IP they aren't using.
EDIT- Those defending this also need to comment on how their blind acceptance contributes to the swing towards online-only GaaS. If you don't think part of the draw for gaming companies is that they get yo force you into sequels, instead of trying to tempt you into them by creating a sequel worthy of the name.... Well, you're just being naive.
Fairly certain the people acting like petulant children are those demanding rights they legally don't have, even though most freely agreed to the terms of service.
Throwing up various strawmen irrelevant to the situation doesn't change anything on what is legal and what is not.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I have always believed emulation should be allowed for shut down MMORPG. Offer the game at cost to consumer to run or source code.
I am heavily invested in Microsoft digital games because it is cheaper to buy digital most times than 2 disc in a dual Xbox household. What happens if MS decides to get out of console market. Will I lose rights to access all of my games?
Imagine Steam is forced to shutdown. Should they be forced to give there gaming services to the public to at least access their game library or are they just gone?
This is what I'm getting at: it isn't a binary choice for Pubs or Devs to either shut the server down or lose all copyright/trademark protection. That's a false dichotomy used to push the idea that private server administrators are all scumbags trying to steal precious IPs from pubs/devs.
In fact, there's literally a legal agreement created specifically to give the parties other options: licensing agreements.
Nobody is saying lose copyright. If I pay for a game I should be able to play. Fine you shut down the service then I should be able to run my game at cost since it has been abandoned. This is not playere creating a new game off the IP. Just using the software they purchased.
I'm pretty sure I payed for Win 95. It won't work today. Just because I bought a copy of Win 95 doesn't mean that Microsoft is still obligated to support it. If I tried to release a pirated version of Win 95 today, I would expect Microsoft (and their many, many lawyers) would have something to say about it.
The City of Heroes game you bought was a client version that allowed you to connect and process proprietary signals from their server. You couldn't buy a copy of that server then, nor now. They (NCSoft) decided it wasn't worth their time and effort to continue providing that service. Nowhere was it implied that you should be able to run your copy of the game past the date that the service was provided. So, your argument has a major fallacy -- you were never sold the right to operate the COH client indefinitely, only as long as the service was in operation.
Nailed it, I couldn't think of an applicable analogy but yours is pretty spot on.
People have long failed to grasp when "buying" an "online" game you only have a right to play it as long as the "service" is available.
Could be 20 years, perhaps only 6 months, its a risk you take unless the game has an offline component, but few do these days.
Nobody is ignorant of the law. Not everyone looks at the law with the eyes of a small child being dictated to by papa bear, though.
Nor are we not allowed to make a judgement call on publishers that actively avoId engaging with the fan project of an IP they aren't using.
EDIT- Those defending this also need to comment on how their blind acceptance contributes to the swing towards online-only GaaS. If you don't think part of the draw for gaming companies is that they get yo force you into sequels, instead of trying to tempt you into them by creating a sequel worthy of the name.... Well, you're just being naive.
Fairly certain the people acting like petulant children are those demanding rights they legally don't have, even though most freely agreed to the terms of service.
Throwing up various strawmen irrelevant to the situation doesn't change anything on what is legal and what is not.
Wearing my lawful good hat here.
I never implied anyone acting petulant; the child in my example is merely intimidated into cynical acceptance.
As we move more and more into online-only games, this issue will become a bigger and bigger fault line.
Pubs/Devs could get ahead of it by creating innovative licensing partnerships that also required better accountability among private server admins, but why would they, when they've got so many of the same gamers ready to throw down in their defense?
I have always believed emulation should be allowed for shut down MMORPG. Offer the game at cost to consumer to run or source code.
I am heavily invested in Microsoft digital games because it is cheaper to buy digital most times than 2 disc in a dual Xbox household. What happens if MS decides to get out of console market. Will I lose rights to access all of my games?
Imagine Steam is forced to shutdown. Should they be forced to give there gaming services to the public to at least access their game library or are they just gone?
This is what I'm getting at: it isn't a binary choice for Pubs or Devs to either shut the server down or lose all copyright/trademark protection. That's a false dichotomy used to push the idea that private server administrators are all scumbags trying to steal precious IPs from pubs/devs.
In fact, there's literally a legal agreement created specifically to give the parties other options: licensing agreements.
Nobody is saying lose copyright. If I pay for a game I should be able to play. Fine you shut down the service then I should be able to run my game at cost since it has been abandoned. This is not playere creating a new game off the IP. Just using the software they purchased.
I'm pretty sure I payed for Win 95. It won't work today. Just because I bought a copy of Win 95 doesn't mean that Microsoft is still obligated to support it. If I tried to release a pirated version of Win 95 today, I would expect Microsoft (and their many, many lawyers) would have something to say about it.
The City of Heroes game you bought was a client version that allowed you to connect and process proprietary signals from their server. You couldn't buy a copy of that server then, nor now. They (NCSoft) decided it wasn't worth their time and effort to continue providing that service. Nowhere was it implied that you should be able to run your copy of the game past the date that the service was provided. So, your argument has a major fallacy -- you were never sold the right to operate the COH client indefinitely, only as long as the service was in operation.
Nailed it, I couldn't think of an applicable analogy but yours is pretty spot on.
People have long failed to grasp when "buying" an "online" game you only have a right to play it as long as the "service" is available.
Could be 20 years, perhaps only 6 months, its a risk you take unless the game has an offline component, but few do these days.
And maybe it shouldn't be that way. Nobody is ignorant of how things are. Just doesn't mean we have to agree with how they are.
My opinion is if you fail to provide the service any longer the players themselves should be able to step in. Windows 95 just isn't supported. Microsoft would not stop users from supporting Windows 95 with patches. They won't shut down computers running it if they log on.
Lets be clear about something: this isn't a case of emulation, it is a case of theft.
This is leaked proprietary code belonging to a piece of intellectual property that has been both trademarked and copyrighted.
I don't understand why some people are cheering about this. They clearly don't fathom the very real gravity of this situation.
Certain individuals created a bunch of drama because they were jealous that they were not invited to the server, which is the equivalent of a toddler complaining that they can't have the same toy as another boy on the playground. Then after days of repeated pressuring thanks to these individuals, the owner buckles and decides to commit a federal crime as a result by distributing the aforementioned stolen materials?
There is a lot more at stake here then some servers just being shut down, that type of ignorant thinking is frightening and comes with very real consequences. Legitimate legalities exist and the chain of events that will unfold as a result of those legalities will have an extraordinarily negative impact on some peoples lives.
All of this because someone couldn't handle that they were not allowed to join in on a privately run server that should never have existed to begin with.
I have always believed emulation should be allowed for shut down MMORPG. Offer the game at cost to consumer to run or source code.
I am heavily invested in Microsoft digital games because it is cheaper to buy digital most times than 2 disc in a dual Xbox household. What happens if MS decides to get out of console market. Will I lose rights to access all of my games?
Imagine Steam is forced to shutdown. Should they be forced to give there gaming services to the public to at least access their game library or are they just gone?
This is what I'm getting at: it isn't a binary choice for Pubs or Devs to either shut the server down or lose all copyright/trademark protection. That's a false dichotomy used to push the idea that private server administrators are all scumbags trying to steal precious IPs from pubs/devs.
In fact, there's literally a legal agreement created specifically to give the parties other options: licensing agreements.
Nobody is saying lose copyright. If I pay for a game I should be able to play. Fine you shut down the service then I should be able to run my game at cost since it has been abandoned. This is not playere creating a new game off the IP. Just using the software they purchased.
I'm pretty sure I payed for Win 95. It won't work today. Just because I bought a copy of Win 95 doesn't mean that Microsoft is still obligated to support it. If I tried to release a pirated version of Win 95 today, I would expect Microsoft (and their many, many lawyers) would have something to say about it.
The City of Heroes game you bought was a client version that allowed you to connect and process proprietary signals from their server. You couldn't buy a copy of that server then, nor now. They (NCSoft) decided it wasn't worth their time and effort to continue providing that service. Nowhere was it implied that you should be able to run your copy of the game past the date that the service was provided. So, your argument has a major fallacy -- you were never sold the right to operate the COH client indefinitely, only as long as the service was in operation.
Nailed it, I couldn't think of an applicable analogy but yours is pretty spot on.
People have long failed to grasp when "buying" an "online" game you only have a right to play it as long as the "service" is available.
Could be 20 years, perhaps only 6 months, its a risk you take unless the game has an offline component, but few do these days.
That's actually a pretty poor analogy. Technically, if you have an old box with Win95 and old-school 32-bit games that won't run on 64-bit, you could still play them on your '95 junker. This was a common thing pre-GOG stores.
Old versions of Windows still function and you still own them. They just have no support and nothing new will run on them(browsers, etc., all have evolved since then).
I'm not really disagreeing with your point, though
I see emulators as the internet-battlefield version of marijuana. One day -- the same way that weed will be nationally legalized -- all of these "online games" developers will just make publicizing dead online games part of the standard practice... mainly for archiving purposes, if nothing else.
Now that online service is pretty much common amongst the majority of genres and platforms, I imagine some proper "what-if" standards will be put in place before long.
A decade from now, the issue of online games no longer being available post-termination will probably be laid to rest. That doesn't mean allowing you to steal all their source code, of course, but just basic server-hosting.
But, for now, you shouldn't touch their source code with a 300-foot pole unless you are some kind of masochist which wants legal trouble. Obviously, I'm referring to hosting servers and such. I mean, if you want a one-person server setup you host at home for yourself or local friends, go for it
However, in this particular case, it does appear to be a case of stolen server code and not an emulated COH service. So there appears to have been a severely shorter than 300-foot pole involved.
Yep, the Win 95 wasn't maybe the best analogy, from an operational perspective. But Microsoft still owns that code and has the intellectual property rights to pursue anyone trying to sell Win 95 code as their own. You could make and sell an emulated version of Win 85 (but why?), just not claim their code as your own work (again, why?).
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
I guess people forget, sometimes those in charge of the law aren't always thinking in the best interest of everyone. Salem witch hunt comes to mind. The Holy Inquisition also being abuse of power.
Just because the laws dictate now that CoX can't be played simply because NCSoft said so, doesn't make it right. If enough complaints are made about it, I'm sure laws can be changed to meet or at the very least compromise with consumers.
I would honestly prefer that these companies merely offer some kind of standardized licensing agreement that holds the admins accountable to being a non-profit endeavor while simultaneously protecting the trademarks of the company.
But that takes both sides acknowledging there's a much better way to do this cooperatively. But why would they? We got folks literally condemning other gamers merely for wanting to continue playing a game they like (no interest in profiting off the endeavor, in many cases); an act that does zero harm whatsoever to the creator at the point in the game's lifecycle we're discussing.
I do find it weird gamers will defend a game company to death (so to speak), no matter what. Companies are not someones friend, they are out to make money.
MY PERSONAL OPINION ONLY:
I'm pretty sure most people realize that, but those who are saying that this is theft of intellectual property are siding with the law. It's pretty simple. This code was stolen from NCSoft. This was distributed without any input from NCS, further exacerbating the theft exponentially.
Literally nothing in this world lasts forever and it's simply shocking how many believe they are somehow entitled to play a game forever if a company decides to stop its service irrespective of how popular it is at the time.
Do I think it would buy good faith if companies did release code for dead games? Absolutely. Do I condone the theft and distribution of the code just because they did not? Absolutely not.
I have always believed emulation should be allowed for shut down MMORPG. Offer the game at cost to consumer to run or source code.
I am heavily invested in Microsoft digital games because it is cheaper to buy digital most times than 2 disc in a dual Xbox household. What happens if MS decides to get out of console market. Will I lose rights to access all of my games?
Imagine Steam is forced to shutdown. Should they be forced to give there gaming services to the public to at least access their game library or are they just gone?
This is what I'm getting at: it isn't a binary choice for Pubs or Devs to either shut the server down or lose all copyright/trademark protection. That's a false dichotomy used to push the idea that private server administrators are all scumbags trying to steal precious IPs from pubs/devs.
In fact, there's literally a legal agreement created specifically to give the parties other options: licensing agreements.
Nobody is saying lose copyright. If I pay for a game I should be able to play. Fine you shut down the service then I should be able to run my game at cost since it has been abandoned. This is not playere creating a new game off the IP. Just using the software they purchased.
I'm pretty sure I payed for Win 95. It won't work today. Just because I bought a copy of Win 95 doesn't mean that Microsoft is still obligated to support it. If I tried to release a pirated version of Win 95 today, I would expect Microsoft (and their many, many lawyers) would have something to say about it.
The City of Heroes game you bought was a client version that allowed you to connect and process proprietary signals from their server. You couldn't buy a copy of that server then, nor now. They (NCSoft) decided it wasn't worth their time and effort to continue providing that service. Nowhere was it implied that you should be able to run your copy of the game past the date that the service was provided. So, your argument has a major fallacy -- you were never sold the right to operate the COH client indefinitely, only as long as the service was in operation.
Nailed it, I couldn't think of an applicable analogy but yours is pretty spot on.
People have long failed to grasp when "buying" an "online" game you only have a right to play it as long as the "service" is available.
Could be 20 years, perhaps only 6 months, its a risk you take unless the game has an offline component, but few do these days.
And maybe it shouldn't be that way. Nobody is ignorant of how things are. Just doesn't mean we have to agree with how they are.
My opinion is if you fail to provide the service any longer the players themselves should be able to step in. Windows 95 just isn't supported. Microsoft would not stop users from supporting Windows 95 with patches. They won't shut down computers running it if they log on.
But they didn’t fail the service or no longer support it, they terminated it. Which they have every right to do so, you even agreed that they could when you signed up.
Secondly, you didn’t buy a product, you bought access to a service through a client. In reality you don’t own anything. This contrary to owning an actual OS, supported or not.
COX players aren’t being owned anything, some are however tampering with the IP and thats illegal. It really isn’t hard to understand, and with the ‘sympathy factor’ taken out of the equation nobody would disagree. But, because of feelings some think the lines can be blurred. Understandable? Yes. Right? No.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Comments
In fact, there's literally a legal agreement created specifically to give the parties other options: licensing agreements.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Currently 1000+ players online, website is crashing. Expect server to crash too.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
People have long failed to grasp when "buying" an "online" game you only have a right to play it as long as the "service" is available.
Could be 20 years, perhaps only 6 months, its a risk you take unless the game has an offline component, but few do these days.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Nor are we not allowed to make a judgement call on publishers that actively avoId engaging with the fan project of an IP they aren't using.
EDIT- Those defending this also need to comment on how their blind acceptance contributes to the swing towards online-only GaaS. If you don't think part of the draw for gaming companies is that they get yo force you into sequels, instead of trying to tempt you into them by creating a sequel worthy of the name.... Well, you're just being naive.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Throwing up various strawmen irrelevant to the situation doesn't change anything on what is legal and what is not.
Wearing my lawful good hat here.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
As we move more and more into online-only games, this issue will become a bigger and bigger fault line.
Pubs/Devs could get ahead of it by creating innovative licensing partnerships that also required better accountability among private server admins, but why would they, when they've got so many of the same gamers ready to throw down in their defense?
My opinion is if you fail to provide the service any longer the players themselves should be able to step in. Windows 95 just isn't supported. Microsoft would not stop users from supporting Windows 95 with patches. They won't shut down computers running it if they log on.
This is leaked proprietary code belonging to a piece of intellectual property that has been both trademarked and copyrighted.
I don't understand why some people are cheering about this. They clearly don't fathom the very real gravity of this situation.
Certain individuals created a bunch of drama because they were jealous that they were not invited to the server, which is the equivalent of a toddler complaining that they can't have the same toy as another boy on the playground. Then after days of repeated pressuring thanks to these individuals, the owner buckles and decides to commit a federal crime as a result by distributing the aforementioned stolen materials?
There is a lot more at stake here then some servers just being shut down, that type of ignorant thinking is frightening and comes with very real consequences. Legitimate legalities exist and the chain of events that will unfold as a result of those legalities will have an extraordinarily negative impact on some peoples lives.
All of this because someone couldn't handle that they were not allowed to join in on a privately run server that should never have existed to begin with.
How ridiculously absurd.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
But that takes both sides acknowledging there's a much better way to do this cooperatively. But why would they? We got folks literally condemning other gamers merely for wanting to continue playing a game they like (no interest in profiting off the endeavor, in many cases); an act that does zero harm whatsoever to the creator at the point in the game's lifecycle we're discussing.
MY PERSONAL OPINION ONLY:
I'm pretty sure most people realize that, but those who are saying that this is theft of intellectual property are siding with the law. It's pretty simple. This code was stolen from NCSoft. This was distributed without any input from NCS, further exacerbating the theft exponentially.
Literally nothing in this world lasts forever and it's simply shocking how many believe they are somehow entitled to play a game forever if a company decides to stop its service irrespective of how popular it is at the time.
Do I think it would buy good faith if companies did release code for dead games? Absolutely. Do I condone the theft and distribution of the code just because they did not? Absolutely not.
Theft is theft and it's wrong.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Secondly, you didn’t buy a product, you bought access to a service through a client. In reality you don’t own anything. This contrary to owning an actual OS, supported or not.
COX players aren’t being owned anything, some are however tampering with the IP and thats illegal. It really isn’t hard to understand, and with the ‘sympathy factor’ taken out of the equation nobody would disagree. But, because of feelings some think the lines can be blurred. Understandable? Yes. Right? No.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer