bverji...go learn about the real costs associated with the development of enterprise software available through a high-bandwidth internet infrastructure. You are making yourself look like an absolute fool.
Originally posted by Zorvan I don't see any harm in allowing private servers as long as they remain private and don't cast the original developers and/or game in a bad light. As for AC2, I believe they should refund people's money who bought the expansion. I don't play AC 1 or 2, but I know I'd be a little peeved shelling out money for a game and then having it shut down soon afterward. They knew they were going to shut down but continued to sell the expansion. Seems a little shady to me.
A company always has a plan. Its pretty crappy if a company pushes out a new product then shortly after releasing said product says they are killing the server. The people that bought the product should be allowed a cash back partial or full refund.
Originally posted by SONOFAGUNN If you spend $50 on a game and you pay to play for a reasonable time they should give you the right to set up your own server.
lolz.
Okay, first off let's assume that no profit was being made on AC2's new player controlled servers.
So you got free AC2 servers now after the game shuts down. Everyone knows AC2 is linked to and made by Turbine, Inc.
...So now some schmucks start the new AC2 servers with all the umm "stolen" code and work of Turbine and place them on their own servers. Their servers are nowhere near as good as Turbines. The lag is extremely horrid. Bugs that Turbine would have/could have smashed easily start to run rampant. The schmucks that start their own servers play with the code and now have avatars running around nekked and jumping halfway across the continents with a new funtion that they add. The original games code of conduct for the player base is thrashed and not enforced at all. Harassment including both sexual and racial run rampant without conequence.
This is only a possibility of what might happen, sure. But in the hands of whoever puts their little paws on it that wants to use the code and AC2 name could do this or much worse actually.
And this kindof negative free hosting is certainly a good possibility!
I can see why Turbine doesn't just hand out their code for all to use, even if there were no liability or financial concerns. Something like I just described would only make Turbine look really bad to any future adventurers of the AC2 world on free servers.
And this is only one very small part of all the reasons that Turbine would be insanely stupid to just hand out the code and allow people to host their own free servers.
Hell no buying the game gives you rights to the coding and rights to open up free servers of your own. Anyone that thinks like this should click two braincells together and try and read the Terms and Conditions.
But I agree it must suck to have a game shut down right after you buy another expansion for it. It's funny too, I saw a bunch of those at EB just 2 weeks ago.
This is more directed to the people spamming boards with Turbine hate and all their pestering demands:
You were playing the game because you liked it. Now it's gone. Sh*t happens, move on. This isn't the first time in life that something like that is gonna happen to you. It's like buying a 3-day pass to a theme park and it starts raining an hour or two before it closes on the third day. These poor souls who are getting ripped off of maybe 20 dollars of theme-park-extravaganza's are normal and wouldn't sit at home fretting over cancelled games, b*tching all over forums, nay, they would say "Oh well, it was fun while it lasted" or some other optimistic crap and move on.
DISCLAIMER: This was not directed at any specifics. I have been avoided the MMORPG.com AC2 threads until now when I have been in the mood to look like an ass. This was directed to those people in general that which most of them won't even read it.
Originally posted by ianubisi bverji...go learn about the real costs associated with the development of enterprise software available through a high-bandwidth internet infrastructure. You are making yourself look like an absolute fool.
Don't go around throwing insults about things you fail to even begin to attempt to explain. If you disagree with me fine, but do it civilly and at least try to use something resembling logic instead of questioning my knowledge base with childish unsubstantiated slurs. I am very familiar about the investment companies make to create a product, however,the production cost of the "enterprise" has nothing to do with the situation and your suggestion that this cost justifies Turbins choice to not provide access for those who have purchased their game illustrates your own ignorance about business/ethics/finance/law. A company has no assured right to make a profit; they are responsible for honoring the expectations between them and their customers reguardless if they make money doing so. The intial investment has already been made by turbine just because they chose to no longer attempt to draw income from that investment, however, dosn't desolve their responsibility to those who purchased their game. They obviously intended to make a profit on the game when they created it and that was to be done so through game sells and monthly fees for the use of the servers. Just because that profit margin isn't acceptable to them it shouldn't give them the right to screw the people who did purchase hte game and still continue to play it. They forfit the right to that exclusivity of the server software when they refuse to no longer service their product.
As I said before if a company was to sell a game you could not play it would be considered unacceptable. I see little difference to selling a game and then refusing to let people access the required elements to continue to use the software.
Originally posted by bverji The intial investment has already been made by turbine just because they chose to no longer attempt to draw income from that investment, however, dosn't desolve their responsibility to those who purchased their game.
I fail to see why you think they still have some sort of a responsibility. It was a subscription-based service, there was no guarantee of how long the service would be provided. If that service is not making profit but instead is a financial loss, isn't that a burden to other (probably more profitable and more entertaining) development plans of Turbine? After all, we are merely talking about a game, entertainment. There are quite a few other options for one to be entertained.
Currently playing: * City of Heroes: Deggial, Assault Rifle/Devices Blaster. Server: Defiant. * City of Villains: Snakeroot, Plant/Thorns Dominator. Server: Defiant.
Originally posted by bverji Intellectual property doesnt mean what I think you guys think it means. Both 3 robots and deggilator mention Intellectual property and that is irrelevant concerning running a dedicated server for a game. I am not claiming that their intellectual property should be sold or used in any other way then they developed it and as such Intellectual property has no bearing. I think there is an obligation by the producer to provide a way to access the software purchased whether that be renting a server or providing a way to set up your own server. For example, do you think it would be legal/fair to sell you a game you could not play? I would assume any reasonable person would say no, but somehow you justify being sold a game and then stopping anyway to continue to play it. Very little difference.
You say that i dont understand IP and say it is irrelevant (the name is i<3robots btw ), but then offer no explanation as to what it is and why it is irrelevant. Here is why Turbine's IP rights are relevant.
The entire Asheron's Call universe was created by Turbine. They have the right to liscense it as they see fit. To allow player run servers would strip them of that right. They might liscense the concept to another developer - but with player run servers, it denies them the realistic ability to do so.
Secondly - AC2 uses the propertiery T2 engine. Turbine developed that engine themselves - and many parts of it are intergrated into the T3 engine being used by DDO & LoTRO. Software code is certainly IP and as gamers - we want those rights to be protected. To allow private servers would allow reverse engineering of their code.
You claim that there is an obligation for publishers to provide access. There is certainly not a legal obligation. They are only obligated to meet what they proscribe in the ToS - if you pay the monthly fee, you have access to the servers for that month. Once they stop collecting the monthly fees, they can deny access to the servers. The DMCRA would protect Turbine from any of these obligations.
Your example is flawed. Turbine launced the game in 2002, and the expack in May. The game lasted years, and players have ample time to get thier enjoyment out of the expack. Most players did not renew after their free month from the expac was up - which is why the game is closing. They are also giving ample notice that the game is closing. Buying a broken product is not the same as a subscribtion based product closing down.
Here is a better example - I paid an initiation fee for my gym membership. I pay a monthly fee. If the gym closes - do i have a right to demand a treadmill and a few weight machines? Of course not - and the same applies here. You are not buying equity into the game - just access to the servers. And that access is only good for the month in which you paid.
Originally posted by Agama Originally posted by Zorvan I don't see any harm in allowing private servers as long as they remain private and don't cast the original developers and/or game in a bad light. As for AC2, I believe they should refund people's money who bought the expansion. I don't play AC 1 or 2, but I know I'd be a little peeved shelling out money for a game and then having it shut down soon afterward. They knew they were going to shut down but continued to sell the expansion. Seems a little shady to me. A company always has a plan. Its pretty crappy if a company pushes out a new product then shortly after releasing said product says they are killing the server. The people that bought the product should be allowed a cash back partial or full refund. Pretty low really.
Turbine just had an AC1 expansion, and has a new MMO (probably ) coming out before AC2 actually shuts down. I don't think it would have been too hard for them to offer one of those two to the people who bought the game. (Though, obviously I don't know the business details for those games :-D) Maybe everyone wouldn't be happy, but at the very least, they'd be offering something to their customers.
That's a pretty good suggestion, Bethling. It would certainly show good will and would probably go a long way in keeping quite a few of their AC2 customers. I should think a gesture like that would pay off in the long run.
3 robots I did provide a frame work of what turbines rights are to IP when I stated that a private server wouldnt make money or use the software other then designed. Intellectual Property rights only protects the designers from secondary entities that use their ideas in a way that could cause a loss of revenue. As the game was created to be played by their player base and they chose to no longer use the product in that manner there is no potential revenue loss if the game is continued to be used as designed.
There are all sort of legal web sights explaining IP laws, if you disagree look it up.
Also I disagree there isn't a legal obligation for turbine to provide a way to use the software or return part of their customers intial investment, but the likelyhood of anyone pursueiong it is negligable. However, just because people don't make them responsible doesn't mean there isn't a responsibility.
Deggilator you have a good point, but the reason I dont view this as a subscription service is that the customer bought the initial software. By selling the software for a substantial price in order to use the subscription Turbine created responsibility to its customers to provide a way to use that software. There is precedence of expectation that when you purchase software the ownership of that software includes a way to use it.
Originally posted by bverji 3 robots I did provide a frame work of what turbines rights are to IP when I stated that a private server wouldnt make money or use the software other then designed. Intellectual Property rights only protects the designers from secondary entities that use their ideas in a way that could cause a loss of revenue. As the game was created to be played by their player base and they chose to no longer use the product in that manner there is no potential revenue loss if the game is continued to be used as designed. There are all sort of legal web sights explaining IP laws, if you disagree look it up. Deggilator you have a good point, but the reason I dont view this as a subscription service is that the customer bought the initial software. By selling the software for a substantial price in order to use the subscription Turbine created responsibility to its customers to provide a way to use that software. There is precedence of expectation that when you purchase software the ownership of that software includes a way to use it.
You're hardly trying now...
I've also already explained why Turbine would still have an IP claim. They actually own the AC liscense - and it uses software that is still being used. Loss of profit is not relevant, even if it was, Turbine would still have a claim that a private server could potentially hurt future revenues.
There are all sort of legal web sights explaining IP laws post DMCRA, if you disagree look it up.
Originally posted by i<3robots Loss of profit is not relevant, even if it was, Turbine would still have a claim that a private server could potentially hurt future revenues.
If there is no loss of revenue there is no claim of reparation and as such there is no right of the holder of IP. IF there is no loss of revenue or possession there isn't any legal recognition of any right because there is no civil jurisdiction, which is a jargon embeded way of saying that someone can't own an idea; what is owned is the rights to make the revenue off an idea created.
As for the engine Turbin has no right by law to insure that there source code isn't public. They certainly have the right to keep it private if they so choose, but as I stated before they forfite that right by choosing to not service their customers. What they are entitled to by law is that if anyone uses their engine or part of their engine they can sue them. The reality is that it's hard to prove so MMOG"s producers keep such information server side, but that's the choice they should have to make to keep the server information private and provide service or provide the software. If that was a concern for Turbine they should of never of charged for the game software and become simply a game service. But by charging for the game software they have a responsibility to insure use of the game.
Originally posted by i<3robots Loss of profit is not relevant, even if it was, Turbine would still have a claim that a private server could potentially hurt future revenues.
If there is no loss of revenue there is no claim of reparation and as such there is no right of the holder of IP. IF there is no loss of revenue or possession there isn't any legal recognition of any right because there is no civil jurisdiction, which is a jargon embeded way of saying that someone can't own an idea; what is owned is the rights to make the revenue off an idea created.
As for the engine Turbin has no right by law to insure that there source code isn't public. They certainly have the right to keep it private if they so choose, but as I stated before they forfite that right by choosing to not service their customers. What they are entitled to by law is that if anyone uses their engine or part of their engine they can sue them. The reality is that it's hard to prove so MMOG"s producers keep such information server side, but that's the choice they should have to make to keep the server information private and provide service or provide the software. If that was a concern for Turbine they should of never of charged for the game software and become simply a game service. But by charging for the game software they have a responsibility to insure use of the game.
Check out Blizzard v Bnetd.net. Blizzard cited section 1201 of the DMRA of 1998 and had Bnetd.net without making a claim that it caused a loss of revenue. Blizzard also had free WoW servers shut down in beta - when they really coundnt have made a loss of revenue argument as yet.
What precedent is there that paying an upfront price for a product/service that requires ongoing fees ensures that the product/service will exist as long as you want it to? Every ToS agreement in every mmorpg game i have played has the publisher reserving the right to terminate my ability to play at any time for any reason. If you get banned for hacking or duping - you dont have the right to open a server just because you bought the box. I think the same applies here...
What rights did turbine forefit? Any other game you buy... a FPS/RTS/whatever... you do not actually own that game... All you own is the license to use it. So say a publisher stops patching an RTS... does that give you the right to reverse-engineer thier source code and patch it yourself? When you payed 50 bucks for that game, all you payed for was a licenese to play that game, not the game itself... that 50 bucks isn't saying "Hey, I own this game now."
Originally posted by Atoh What rights did turbine forefit? Any other game you buy... a FPS/RTS/whatever... you do not actually own that game... All you own is the license to use it. So say a publisher stops patching an RTS... does that give you the right to reverse-engineer thier source code and patch it yourself? When you payed 50 bucks for that game, all you payed for was a licenese to play that game, not the game itself... that 50 bucks isn't saying "Hey, I own this game now."
They forfit the right to keep their server code privite because as you stated any person who bought the game bought the rights use the game. No one can use the game if there is no access to the server code and therefore are in breach of that understanding. When I use the term purchasing the software I used it in the laymans term of I bought a game not that I have all Intellectual rights to the software...I figured that to be self evident.
Originally posted by bverji They forfit the right to keep their server code privite because as you stated any person who bought the game bought the rights use the game. No one can use the game if there is no access to the server code and therefore are in breach of that understanding. When I use the term purchasing the software I used it in the laymans term of I bought a game not that I have all Intellectual rights to the software...I figured that to be self evident.
However, when you subscribed to the game, you did agree to their license and terms of service. The Terms of Service says: "Turbine has the right to terminate or suspend, and you have the right to cancel, your account(s) or a particular subscription at any time. "
They can shut down the game and cancel everyone's account if they choose to. They didn't forfeit any rights.
Originally posted by i<3robots Check out Blizzard v Bnetd.net. Blizzard cited section 1201 of the DMRA of 1998 and had Bnetd.net without making a claim that it caused a loss of revenue. Blizzard also had free WoW servers shut down in beta - when they really coundnt have made a loss of revenue argument as yet. What precedent is there that paying an upfront price for a product/service that requires ongoing fees ensures that the product/service will exist as long as you want it to? Every ToS agreement in every mmorpg game i have played has the publisher reserving the right to terminate my ability to play at any time for any reason. If you get banned for hacking or duping - you dont have the right to open a server just because you bought the box. I think the same applies here...
Blizzard v Bnetd was about loss revenue. Reguardless if Bnetd gained revenue or not Blizzards claim was for lost revenue of potential cutomers. That's what the suit was based on was that there was a liecense infraction by Bnetd when they reverse engineered Blizzards code and "extended it beyond it's actual area of application." This example, however, doesn't apply because Blizzard was providing an already exsisting access to the game and because the technique of reverse engineering the code was illegal for that purpose. As for shutting down servers while in beta it's still based on potential revenue. That's all a leisence gives the owner is exclusive rights to make money off their creation and the right to stop people from interfering in that process.
As for precedent for purchasing a product and continued use...Cars, boats, planes, appliences, tvs, radios and many other such items produced by companies are required by law after stopping production of a modle to keep providing service parts for the items for certain legnth of time, which is usually equal to the expected user life of the item.
As for your example about being banned from a server a person forfits their right to use of the game by using it in a way unintended. Just as if I was to snap my disk into I have no right to a new one. The same is true about being banned from a hosted game you are responsible for not violating any reasonble agreement of it's use.
Let me rephrase what I said, after some thought. When you buy a game you are essentially buying the right to create an account to play said game. That Cd key is generally used to create an account... which Turbine reserves the right to cancel at anytime. You are not buying the code. You are simply buying the right, as others have stated, to play the game for the month that you paid for. Not for 3 months after, not for a week after. If you stop paying the company, you stop recieveing the right to play the game. Turbine has no responsiblilities to it's customers if they are no longer getting paid.
However, when you subscribed to the game, you did agree to their license and terms of service. The Terms of Service says: "Turbine has the right to terminate or suspend, and you have the right to cancel, your account(s) or a particular subscription at any time. " They can shut down the game and cancel everyone's account if they choose to. They didn't forfeit any rights.
Just because they put something in an agreement it's only binding if they have the legal right to make such a option in the first place. For example, you can't make a cotract for money/sex or promise/suicide. these are of course extreme examples but it illustrates that contracts are only binding within the frame work of the law.
Reguardless of which the part you quote is pertaining to the right to stop a particular subscription not to ceasing service all together.
Originally posted by Atoh Let me rephrase what I said, after some thought. When you buy a game you are essentially buying the right to create an account to play said game. That Cd key is generally used to create an account... which Turbine reserves the right to cancel at anytime.
And I disagree with that. there is nothing stating that is the case, it's not the expectation when purchaing game software, it is arguable the validity of charging for the right to pay a subscription (admitidly I am unsure of the particulars, but I know there are civil laws agaisnt double billing), And since the software comes with the purchase you make there is the reasonable assuption you bought the license to use it and I am sure that somewhere in the documentation that the purchase of the use is stated.
Originally posted by i<3robots Check out Blizzard v Bnetd.net. Blizzard cited section 1201 of the DMRA of 1998 and had Bnetd.net without making a claim that it caused a loss of revenue. Blizzard also had free WoW servers shut down in beta - when they really coundnt have made a loss of revenue argument as yet. What precedent is there that paying an upfront price for a product/service that requires ongoing fees ensures that the product/service will exist as long as you want it to? Every ToS agreement in every mmorpg game i have played has the publisher reserving the right to terminate my ability to play at any time for any reason. If you get banned for hacking or duping - you dont have the right to open a server just because you bought the box. I think the same applies here...
Blizzard v Bnetd was about loss revenue. Reguardless if Bnetd gained revenue or not Blizzards claim was for lost revenue of potential cutomers. That's what the suit was based on was that there was a liecense infraction by Bnetd when they reverse engineered Blizzards code and "extended it beyond it's actual area of application." This example, however, doesn't apply because Blizzard was providing an already exsisting access to the game and because the technique of reverse engineering the code was illegal for that purpose. As for shutting down servers while in beta it's still based on potential revenue. That's all a leisence gives the owner is exclusive rights to make money off their creation and the right to stop people from interfering in that process.
As for precedent for purchasing a product and continued use...Cars, boats, planes, appliences, tvs, radios and many other such items produced by companies are required by law after stopping production of a modle to keep providing service parts for the items for certain legnth of time, which is usually equal to the expected user life of the item.
As for your example about being banned from a server a person forfits their right to use of the game by using it in a way unintended. Just as if I was to snap my disk into I have no right to a new one. The same is true about being banned from a hosted game you are responsible for not violating any reasonble agreement of it's use.
Blizzard did not claim a loss of revenue in the suit- as they really couldnt claim a loss of revenue. Both Bnet and bnetd.net were free services. The court did not take revenue into account. Since an emulated server for AC2 would require the RE of AC2, which uses the T2 engine, which shares code with the T3 engine, which is being used by DDO and LoTRO, Turbine would have a case to make. RE of the T2 engine could jeopardize future earnings - and since that engine is potentially a liscensable product, they could also cliam that eming would be stealing their rights to sell if for a profit. Also - they own the universe to Ascherons Call - they could claim that future revenues would be hurt because they were planning on relaunching AC2, or that a free server would cause subscription loss for AC1 or that they were hoping that someone would liscence AC2 and pay them to set up a server. Section 1201 pretty much kicked fair use in the teeth - Turbine would easily win any suit they pressed against anyone who set up a private AC2 server...
Planes & radios? Ummm.... I think you are going to cite something relevant to the discussion. You need to provide an example where there is payment up front, then monthly payments for access to the product (finianced products wouldnt really apply here) - and the provider being compelled to continue service because there was an up front fee...
Here is the actual situation - if someone was to set up a public server for AC2 - it would be shut down the second Turbines lawyer sent a cease and desist letter to the ISP hosting that server. Turbine would easily win the case in court. That is the reality. You seem to have a good grasp on IP law - but you are incorrect in this situation....
The bottom line is NO you should not have the right to a copy of the server code to run your own game.
When you buy the game you are not buying the 'game' and your not buying the 'server code'.. you are BUYING the CLIENT.
AC2 are NOt removing the game, they are removing the SERVER you paid for the CLIENT and you still have the CLIENT. you have, and in #2 years time' like one of you mentioned you will STILL have the CLIENT.
When you buy a game such as DOOM3 you are buying the GAME not the CODE thats why you have NO rights over the code.
You have RIGHTS for the copy of the CLIENT not the SERVER.
And also you are LICENCED to use the CLIENT not the SERVER. You can still use the CLIENT just no server to connect to.
They ar eonly denying you a SERVICE not a PRODUCT, their SERVICE has been cancelled, not the PRODUCT.
You own a LICENCE to USE THE CLIENT not a licence to SERVER.
You guys are going way to deep into this, you paid for the CLIENT, you got the CLIENT. Legally you have what you paid for, just because the SERVICE is no longer avilable means nothing.
If you PAID to download MSN Messenger to connect to the MSN SERVER to chat, then MSN closed that SERVICE, you do not have ANY RIGHT to the SERVER code for MSN Messenger, you paid for the MSN ClIENT, you have the MSN CLIENT.
Originally posted by i<3robots Blizzard did not claim a loss of revenue in the suit- as they really couldnt claim a loss of revenue. Both Bnet and bnetd.net were free services. The court did not take revenue into account.
If I am charging $50 for a game and you are giving the game away my loss revenue is $50 reguardless of what you are charging. The laws recognises this and that how the concept of revenue works in the legal model. I explained it before. I don't know how to have a disscussion with you if you can't accept/understand basic and reasonable concepts. I know that comes off harshly and I don't intend to be insulting, but I don't know what else to say to such a grave misinterpretation about loss of revenue. What your saying is obviously incorrect being free services has no bearing.
Civil court can't recognise anything other then monetary loss, everything is about monetary exchange and the rights of monetary exchange in civil court. That's why people can't own ideas there isn't anythin substanial to posses and there is no singular possession the only thing that can be own is the right of worth from an idea.
Comments
bverji...go learn about the real costs associated with the development of enterprise software available through a high-bandwidth internet infrastructure. You are making yourself look like an absolute fool.
A company always has a plan. Its pretty crappy if a company pushes out a new product then shortly after releasing said product says they are killing the server. The people that bought the product should be allowed a cash back partial or full refund.
Pretty low really.
lolz.
Okay, first off let's assume that no profit was being made on AC2's new player controlled servers.
So you got free AC2 servers now after the game shuts down. Everyone knows AC2 is linked to and made by Turbine, Inc.
...So now some schmucks start the new AC2 servers with all the umm "stolen" code and work of Turbine and place them on their own servers. Their servers are nowhere near as good as Turbines. The lag is extremely horrid. Bugs that Turbine would have/could have smashed easily start to run rampant. The schmucks that start their own servers play with the code and now have avatars running around nekked and jumping halfway across the continents with a new funtion that they add. The original games code of conduct for the player base is thrashed and not enforced at all. Harassment including both sexual and racial run rampant without conequence.
This is only a possibility of what might happen, sure. But in the hands of whoever puts their little paws on it that wants to use the code and AC2 name could do this or much worse actually.
And this kindof negative free hosting is certainly a good possibility!
I can see why Turbine doesn't just hand out their code for all to use, even if there were no liability or financial concerns. Something like I just described would only make Turbine look really bad to any future adventurers of the AC2 world on free servers.
And this is only one very small part of all the reasons that Turbine would be insanely stupid to just hand out the code and allow people to host their own free servers.
Hell no buying the game gives you rights to the coding and rights to open up free servers of your own. Anyone that thinks like this should click two braincells together and try and read the Terms and Conditions.
- Zaxx
-In memory of Laura "Taera" Genender. Passed away on Aug/13/08-
|
RISING DRAGOON ~AION US ONLINE LEGION for Elyos
No.
But I agree it must suck to have a game shut down right after you buy another expansion for it. It's funny too, I saw a bunch of those at EB just 2 weeks ago.
This is more directed to the people spamming boards with Turbine hate and all their pestering demands:
You were playing the game because you liked it. Now it's gone. Sh*t happens, move on. This isn't the first time in life that something like that is gonna happen to you. It's like buying a 3-day pass to a theme park and it starts raining an hour or two before it closes on the third day. These poor souls who are getting ripped off of maybe 20 dollars of theme-park-extravaganza's are normal and wouldn't sit at home fretting over cancelled games, b*tching all over forums, nay, they would say "Oh well, it was fun while it lasted" or some other optimistic crap and move on.
DISCLAIMER: This was not directed at any specifics. I have been avoided the MMORPG.com AC2 threads until now when I have been in the mood to look like an ass. This was directed to those people in general that which most of them won't even read it.
Don't go around throwing insults about things you fail to even begin to attempt to explain. If you disagree with me fine, but do it civilly and at least try to use something resembling logic instead of questioning my knowledge base with childish unsubstantiated slurs. I am very familiar about the investment companies make to create a product, however,the production cost of the "enterprise" has nothing to do with the situation and your suggestion that this cost justifies Turbins choice to not provide access for those who have purchased their game illustrates your own ignorance about business/ethics/finance/law. A company has no assured right to make a profit; they are responsible for honoring the expectations between them and their customers reguardless if they make money doing so. The intial investment has already been made by turbine just because they chose to no longer attempt to draw income from that investment, however, dosn't desolve their responsibility to those who purchased their game. They obviously intended to make a profit on the game when they created it and that was to be done so through game sells and monthly fees for the use of the servers. Just because that profit margin isn't acceptable to them it shouldn't give them the right to screw the people who did purchase hte game and still continue to play it. They forfit the right to that exclusivity of the server software when they refuse to no longer service their product.
As I said before if a company was to sell a game you could not play it would be considered unacceptable. I see little difference to selling a game and then refusing to let people access the required elements to continue to use the software.
I fail to see why you think they still have some sort of a responsibility. It was a subscription-based service, there was no guarantee of how long the service would be provided. If that service is not making profit but instead is a financial loss, isn't that a burden to other (probably more profitable and more entertaining) development plans of Turbine? After all, we are merely talking about a game, entertainment. There are quite a few other options for one to be entertained.
Currently playing:
* City of Heroes: Deggial, Assault Rifle/Devices Blaster. Server: Defiant.
* City of Villains: Snakeroot, Plant/Thorns Dominator. Server: Defiant.
You say that i dont understand IP and say it is irrelevant (the name is i<3robots btw
), but then offer no explanation as to what it is and why it is irrelevant. Here is why Turbine's IP rights are relevant.
The entire Asheron's Call universe was created by Turbine. They have the right to liscense it as they see fit. To allow player run servers would strip them of that right. They might liscense the concept to another developer - but with player run servers, it denies them the realistic ability to do so.
Secondly - AC2 uses the propertiery T2 engine. Turbine developed that engine themselves - and many parts of it are intergrated into the T3 engine being used by DDO & LoTRO. Software code is certainly IP and as gamers - we want those rights to be protected. To allow private servers would allow reverse engineering of their code.
You claim that there is an obligation for publishers to provide access. There is certainly not a legal obligation. They are only obligated to meet what they proscribe in the ToS - if you pay the monthly fee, you have access to the servers for that month. Once they stop collecting the monthly fees, they can deny access to the servers. The DMCRA would protect Turbine from any of these obligations.
Your example is flawed. Turbine launced the game in 2002, and the expack in May. The game lasted years, and players have ample time to get thier enjoyment out of the expack. Most players did not renew after their free month from the expac was up - which is why the game is closing. They are also giving ample notice that the game is closing. Buying a broken product is not the same as a subscribtion based product closing down.
Here is a better example - I paid an initiation fee for my gym membership. I pay a monthly fee. If the gym closes - do i have a right to demand a treadmill and a few weight machines? Of course not - and the same applies here. You are not buying equity into the game - just access to the servers. And that access is only good for the month in which you paid.
Turbine just had an AC1 expansion, and has a new MMO (probably
) coming out before AC2 actually shuts down. I don't think it would have been too hard for them to offer one of those two to the people who bought the game. (Though, obviously I don't know the business details for those games :-D) Maybe everyone wouldn't be happy, but at the very least, they'd be offering something to their customers.
That's a pretty good suggestion, Bethling. It would certainly show good will and would probably go a long way in keeping quite a few of their AC2 customers. I should think a gesture like that would pay off in the long run.
3 robots I did provide a frame work of what turbines rights are to IP when I stated that a private server wouldnt make money or use the software other then designed. Intellectual Property rights only protects the designers from secondary entities that use their ideas in a way that could cause a loss of revenue. As the game was created to be played by their player base and they chose to no longer use the product in that manner there is no potential revenue loss if the game is continued to be used as designed.
There are all sort of legal web sights explaining IP laws, if you disagree look it up.
Also I disagree there isn't a legal obligation for turbine to provide a way to use the software or return part of their customers intial investment, but the likelyhood of anyone pursueiong it is negligable. However, just because people don't make them responsible doesn't mean there isn't a responsibility.
Deggilator you have a good point, but the reason I dont view this as a subscription service is that the customer bought the initial software. By selling the software for a substantial price in order to use the subscription Turbine created responsibility to its customers to provide a way to use that software. There is precedence of expectation that when you purchase software the ownership of that software includes a way to use it.
You're hardly trying now...
I've also already explained why Turbine would still have an IP claim. They actually own the AC liscense - and it uses software that is still being used. Loss of profit is not relevant, even if it was, Turbine would still have a claim that a private server could potentially hurt future revenues.
There are all sort of legal web sights explaining IP laws post DMCRA, if you disagree look it up.
If there is no loss of revenue there is no claim of reparation and as such there is no right of the holder of IP. IF there is no loss of revenue or possession there isn't any legal recognition of any right because there is no civil jurisdiction, which is a jargon embeded way of saying that someone can't own an idea; what is owned is the rights to make the revenue off an idea created.
As for the engine Turbin has no right by law to insure that there source code isn't public. They certainly have the right to keep it private if they so choose, but as I stated before they forfite that right by choosing to not service their customers. What they are entitled to by law is that if anyone uses their engine or part of their engine they can sue them. The reality is that it's hard to prove so MMOG"s producers keep such information server side, but that's the choice they should have to make to keep the server information private and provide service or provide the software. If that was a concern for Turbine they should of never of charged for the game software and become simply a game service. But by charging for the game software they have a responsibility to insure use of the game.
If there is no loss of revenue there is no claim of reparation and as such there is no right of the holder of IP. IF there is no loss of revenue or possession there isn't any legal recognition of any right because there is no civil jurisdiction, which is a jargon embeded way of saying that someone can't own an idea; what is owned is the rights to make the revenue off an idea created.
As for the engine Turbin has no right by law to insure that there source code isn't public. They certainly have the right to keep it private if they so choose, but as I stated before they forfite that right by choosing to not service their customers. What they are entitled to by law is that if anyone uses their engine or part of their engine they can sue them. The reality is that it's hard to prove so MMOG"s producers keep such information server side, but that's the choice they should have to make to keep the server information private and provide service or provide the software. If that was a concern for Turbine they should of never of charged for the game software and become simply a game service. But by charging for the game software they have a responsibility to insure use of the game.
Check out Blizzard v Bnetd.net. Blizzard cited section 1201 of the DMRA of 1998 and had Bnetd.net without making a claim that it caused a loss of revenue. Blizzard also had free WoW servers shut down in beta - when they really coundnt have made a loss of revenue argument as yet.
What precedent is there that paying an upfront price for a product/service that requires ongoing fees ensures that the product/service will exist as long as you want it to? Every ToS agreement in every mmorpg game i have played has the publisher reserving the right to terminate my ability to play at any time for any reason. If you get banned for hacking or duping - you dont have the right to open a server just because you bought the box. I think the same applies here...
What rights did turbine forefit? Any other game you buy... a FPS/RTS/whatever... you do not actually own that game... All you own is the license to use it. So say a publisher stops patching an RTS... does that give you the right to reverse-engineer thier source code and patch it yourself? When you payed 50 bucks for that game, all you payed for was a licenese to play that game, not the game itself... that 50 bucks isn't saying "Hey, I own this game now."
However, when you subscribed to the game, you did agree to their license and terms of service. The Terms of Service says: "Turbine has the right to terminate or suspend, and you have the right to cancel, your account(s) or a particular subscription at any time. "
They can shut down the game and cancel everyone's account if they choose to. They didn't forfeit any rights.
Blizzard v Bnetd was about loss revenue. Reguardless if Bnetd gained revenue or not Blizzards claim was for lost revenue of potential cutomers. That's what the suit was based on was that there was a liecense infraction by Bnetd when they reverse engineered Blizzards code and "extended it beyond it's actual area of application." This example, however, doesn't apply because Blizzard was providing an already exsisting access to the game and because the technique of reverse engineering the code was illegal for that purpose. As for shutting down servers while in beta it's still based on potential revenue. That's all a leisence gives the owner is exclusive rights to make money off their creation and the right to stop people from interfering in that process.
As for precedent for purchasing a product and continued use...Cars, boats, planes, appliences, tvs, radios and many other such items produced by companies are required by law after stopping production of a modle to keep providing service parts for the items for certain legnth of time, which is usually equal to the expected user life of the item.
As for your example about being banned from a server a person forfits their right to use of the game by using it in a way unintended. Just as if I was to snap my disk into I have no right to a new one. The same is true about being banned from a hosted game you are responsible for not violating any reasonble agreement of it's use.
Let me rephrase what I said, after some thought. When you buy a game you are essentially buying the right to create an account to play said game. That Cd key is generally used to create an account... which Turbine reserves the right to cancel at anytime. You are not buying the code. You are simply buying the right, as others have stated, to play the game for the month that you paid for. Not for 3 months after, not for a week after. If you stop paying the company, you stop recieveing the right to play the game. Turbine has no responsiblilities to it's customers if they are no longer getting paid.
Just because they put something in an agreement it's only binding if they have the legal right to make such a option in the first place. For example, you can't make a cotract for money/sex or promise/suicide. these are of course extreme examples but it illustrates that contracts are only binding within the frame work of the law.
Reguardless of which the part you quote is pertaining to the right to stop a particular subscription not to ceasing service all together.
And I disagree with that. there is nothing stating that is the case, it's not the expectation when purchaing game software, it is arguable the validity of charging for the right to pay a subscription (admitidly I am unsure of the particulars, but I know there are civil laws agaisnt double billing), And since the software comes with the purchase you make there is the reasonable assuption you bought the license to use it and I am sure that somewhere in the documentation that the purchase of the use is stated.
Blizzard v Bnetd was about loss revenue. Reguardless if Bnetd gained revenue or not Blizzards claim was for lost revenue of potential cutomers. That's what the suit was based on was that there was a liecense infraction by Bnetd when they reverse engineered Blizzards code and "extended it beyond it's actual area of application." This example, however, doesn't apply because Blizzard was providing an already exsisting access to the game and because the technique of reverse engineering the code was illegal for that purpose. As for shutting down servers while in beta it's still based on potential revenue. That's all a leisence gives the owner is exclusive rights to make money off their creation and the right to stop people from interfering in that process.
As for precedent for purchasing a product and continued use...Cars, boats, planes, appliences, tvs, radios and many other such items produced by companies are required by law after stopping production of a modle to keep providing service parts for the items for certain legnth of time, which is usually equal to the expected user life of the item.
As for your example about being banned from a server a person forfits their right to use of the game by using it in a way unintended. Just as if I was to snap my disk into I have no right to a new one. The same is true about being banned from a hosted game you are responsible for not violating any reasonble agreement of it's use.
Blizzard did not claim a loss of revenue in the suit- as they really couldnt claim a loss of revenue. Both Bnet and bnetd.net were free services. The court did not take revenue into account. Since an emulated server for AC2 would require the RE of AC2, which uses the T2 engine, which shares code with the T3 engine, which is being used by DDO and LoTRO, Turbine would have a case to make. RE of the T2 engine could jeopardize future earnings - and since that engine is potentially a liscensable product, they could also cliam that eming would be stealing their rights to sell if for a profit. Also - they own the universe to Ascherons Call - they could claim that future revenues would be hurt because they were planning on relaunching AC2, or that a free server would cause subscription loss for AC1 or that they were hoping that someone would liscence AC2 and pay them to set up a server. Section 1201 pretty much kicked fair use in the teeth - Turbine would easily win any suit they pressed against anyone who set up a private AC2 server...
Planes & radios? Ummm.... I think you are going to cite something relevant to the discussion. You need to provide an example where there is payment up front, then monthly payments for access to the product (finianced products wouldnt really apply here) - and the provider being compelled to continue service because there was an up front fee...
Here is the actual situation - if someone was to set up a public server for AC2 - it would be shut down the second Turbines lawyer sent a cease and desist letter to the ISP hosting that server. Turbine would easily win the case in court. That is the reality. You seem to have a good grasp on IP law - but you are incorrect in this situation....
When you buy the game you are not buying the 'game' and your not buying the 'server code'.. you are BUYING the CLIENT.
AC2 are NOt removing the game, they are removing the SERVER you paid for the CLIENT and you still have the CLIENT. you have, and in #2 years time' like one of you mentioned you will STILL have the CLIENT.
When you buy a game such as DOOM3 you are buying the GAME not the CODE thats why you have NO rights over the code.
You have RIGHTS for the copy of the CLIENT not the SERVER.
They ar eonly denying you a SERVICE not a PRODUCT, their SERVICE has been cancelled, not the PRODUCT.
You own a LICENCE to USE THE CLIENT not a licence to SERVER.
You guys are going way to deep into this, you paid for the CLIENT, you got the CLIENT. Legally you have what you paid for, just because the SERVICE is no longer avilable means nothing.
If you PAID to download MSN Messenger to connect to the MSN SERVER to chat, then MSN closed that SERVICE, you do not have ANY RIGHT to the SERVER code for MSN Messenger, you paid for the MSN ClIENT, you have the MSN CLIENT.
Civil court can't recognise anything other then monetary loss, everything is about monetary exchange and the rights of monetary exchange in civil court. That's why people can't own ideas there isn't anythin substanial to posses and there is no singular possession the only thing that can be own is the right of worth from an idea.