- cross-posted to:
- games@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- games@lemmy.world
The Government recognises recent concerns raised by video games users regarding the long-term operability of purchased products.
Consumers should be aware that there is no requirement in UK law compelling software companies and providers to support older versions of their operating systems, software or connected products. There may be occasions where companies make commercial decisions based on the high running costs of maintaining older servers for video games that have declining user bases. However, video games sellers must comply with existing consumer law, including the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs).
The CPRs require information to consumers to be clear and correct, and prohibit commercial practices which through false information or misleading omissions cause the average consumer to make a different choice, for example, to purchase goods or services they would not otherwise have purchased. The regulations prohibit commercial practices which omit or hide information which the average consumer needs to make an informed choice, and prohibits traders from providing material information in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner. If consumers are led to believe that a game will remain playable indefinitely for certain systems, despite the end of physical support, the CPRs may require that the game remains technically feasible (for example, available offline) to play under those circumstances.
The CPRs are enforced by Trading Standards and the Competition and Markets Authority. If consumers believe that there has been a breach of these regulations, they should report the matter in the first instance to the Citizens Advice consumer helpline on 0808 223 1133 (www.citizensadvice.org.uk). People living in Scotland should contact Advice Direct Scotland on 0808 164 6000 (www.consumeradvice.scot). Both helplines offer a free service advising consumers on their rights and how best to take their case forward. The helplines will refer complaints to Trading Standards services where appropriate. Consumers can also pursue private redress through the courts where a trader has provided misleading information on a product.
The CRA gives consumers important rights when they make a contract with a trader for the supply of digital content. This includes requiring digital content to be of satisfactory quality, fit for a particular purpose and as described by the seller. It can be difficult and expensive for businesses to maintain dedicated support for old software, particularly if it needs to interact with modern hardware, apps and websites, but if software is being offered for sale that is not supported by the provider, then this should be made clear.
If the digital content does not meet these quality rights, the consumer has the right to a repair or replacement of the digital content. If a repair or replacement is not possible, or does not fix the problem, then the consumer will be entitled to some money back or a price reduction which can be up to 100% of the cost of the digital content. These rights apply to intangible digital content like computer software or a PC game, as well as digital content in a tangible form like a physical copy of a video game. The CRA has a time limit of up to six years after a breach of contract during which a consumer can take legal action.
The standards outlined above apply to digital content where there is a contractual right of the trader or a third party to modify or update the digital content. In practice, this means that a trader or third party can upgrade, fix, enhance and improve the features of digital content so long as it continues to match any description given by the trader and continues to conform with any pre-contract information including main characteristics, functionality and compatibility provided by the trader, unless varied by express agreement.
Consumers should also be aware that while there is a statutory right for goods (including intangible digital content) to be of a satisfactory quality, that will only be breached if they are not of the standard which a reasonable person would consider to be satisfactory, taking into account circumstances including the price and any description given. For example, a manufacturer’s support for a mobile phone is likely to be withdrawn as they launch new models. It will remain usable but without, for example, security updates, and over time some app developers may decide to withdraw support.
Department Culture, Media & Sport
Why does this response just feel like it’s a restatement of what people already have the right to without addressing if they’re taking any action or not? Their mobile phone example even remains usable, whereas a lot of these games do not.
The UK gov are as useless as nipples on a man. They don’t act on anything unless they see monetary gain.
Because that’s what it is. I think some of it might have to do with the limited content of the petition itself (a pretty short description about “customers being robbed” without any broader ideas suggested by the campaign) and some with the fact they get plenty of petitions so the first reaction is to stick with what’s already there. That’s my guess at least.
I hope that if this petition reached 100k signatures and went to a parliamentary hearing there could be a chance for a more nuanced presentation of the topic but who knows, maybe I’m just being naive.
This government seems more interested in sending immigrants to Rwanda than doing anything that would actually help anyone
Don’t forget going after disabled people.
It’s an online petition. If petitions actually had the power to change anything, they wouldn’t let you sign them. The response will always be some mealy-mouthed rubbish.
Frankly, this isn’t anything to do with the government anyway, nor should they be getting involved.
It kinda does though. The only way you’re going to force companies to keep their old games available is through laws. Companies will only release source code when they take down their online games if legally compelled. They will only release source or keep on steam old off-line games they don’t want to keep up if they are legally compelled.
And honestly, it seems like the bare minimum to give the community the resources to keep playing a game when you’ve decided as a company it’s too old and you want to move on from it.
The campaign is not about getting source code. Though it’s sort of the ultimate way to preserve a game, it’s too high a bar to clear, and in most cases, it’s not even necessary.
Why is that too high of a bar to clear? I’m not saying every game should be open source from day one (and tbh I think the people who say all software should be free have their head up their ass. People worked on it, some people want to get paid for that work).
However, how does it hurt Ubisoft to wait 5 or so years after shutting down the crew, then releasing the source code? By then, anything relevant to a competitor looking to ape off them, or a bad actor looking to cheat or carry out an attack would be irrelevant, and it would at least give the community a chance at creating something from the leftovers (even a dummy server that doesn’t allow multiplayer, but just lets the game pass any “can I connect to the master server” checks, kind of like what the Single Player Tarkov mod does).
I mean, Doom is the prime example. Would people care anywhere near as much about Doom if it never went open source? It would be a great game, but it would probably no longer be relevant. I can’t see that as being a bad thing for most companies (although I’m perfectly aware that the suits of major game studios will never see it that way).
I don’t think they need to release the source code. They could pay some developers to edit the functions of code that contact the server to work offline, or more preferrably, just release compiled binaries for the server so that consumers can run their own private servers after the game officially hits EoS.
Some companies reuse code from previous games in their new games, in fact I’d say it would be stupid for them not to. Obviously if they released source code then they are making it that much easier for cheaters in their newer games.
The effect that open sourcing a game would have on cheaters is basically propaganda as far as I’m concerned. Cheating has not and will not be defeated by making a game closed source or even installing rootkits on players’ machines. However, open sourcing a game isn’t necessary to keep it alive after sunsetting it either.
The best way to stop cheaters is to program the game to be Server Authoritative with Client-side Prediction. If the server does all the math for checking damage, whether someone hit something, speed and position, etc, then the client cannot cheat those values no matter how hard they try. The server will tell everyone else the correct values and the cheater will keep getting reset to what the server says is true. The only kind of cheats you can use on a game like that would be aimbot or wallhacks. But both of those can often be detected using anti-cheat software which acts like a rootkit. So a combination is most often used.
Like I said, I don’t think open source is necessary. If the server binaries are released, then people can run their own private or join someone else’s by IP, just like online games used to work in the 90’s. That is plenty good enough for consumers to keep using what they paid for and takes zero effort on the part of the developer. Its just the reason they don’t is a combination of what I said before and the publisher wanting you to stop playing the old stuff and only buy the new stuff. Nintendo is notorious for this, and one of the reasons my strong dislike for them has been growing.
I’d hardly call that defeating cheating, and a rootkit anticheat, while overstepping boundaries in what is acceptable to be done on your own PC, still can’t detect those cheats powered by external hardware, including aimbots. The difference in results between a closed source game with this server authoritative design and an open source one is moot. It’s a bad excuse. It doesn’t mean I’m going to fight too hard for all games to go open source when there are way bigger fish to fry though.
You’d have to change how the laws for all of software work to make that a reality, not just video games. And all that’s technically needed to make games work after support ends is a distributed server binary and a change to a client config file to point to it. The engines that games are built on are often not open source, so you’d change the entire business model of the likes of Unity and Unreal (Unreal’s source is available to developers but not “open”). Sometimes source code can even get lost, because it’s not strictly required, just in the way that computers work, to come attached to a compiled executable. The world would be a better place if all video games were open source, and I don’t think open source games are at odds with making a healthy profit (as Doom illustrates), but I think you’d have an insurmountable task of making the entire industry agree to it, as well as a certain amount of the consumer base that drinks the PR kool aid about why games need to stay closed source.
That last statement seams a bit misguided. The without government regulation, cars wouldn’t have such long parts and repair support. Why shouldn’t video games and other products be treated the same?
Because cars are a useful tool made up of physical parts that can wear out, while games are an entertainment product made of ever-changing software. You need a car. You don’t need video games.