Author Topic: "no reason" and no rights  (Read 10827 times)

Soundtrack

  • Boss
  • ****
  • Posts: 178
Re: "no reason" and no rights
« Reply #20 on: October 12, 2012, 06:47:23 PM »
Then I guess there are THREE guarantees in life:

1. Death
2. Taxes
3. EULAs will tell us there are no guarantees.

:D

JaguarX

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,411
Re: "no reason" and no rights
« Reply #21 on: October 12, 2012, 07:01:33 PM »
This kind of thing has been playing on my mind ever since SWG closed. I think we're playing on a new concept which needs to be developed and brought to the attention to the powers that be, in governments around the world. In lack of a better phrase, "Virtual Rights." The Digital Frontier Foundation for one example might be apt to aid us with this. It wouldn't be fast enough to save CoH, but it would help us work towards a better digital future.

The lines between what is or isn't a game and/or virtual world is beginning to blur, and has moved beyond the point at which it can be looked at as just a product. Just as citizens of a town can go to city hall and have a voice in things, so should it be in a virtual community. We are that community's citizens, and without us, that community does not exist.

The corporation is the governing body. The subscription is the tax. The gamers are the citizens.

Why shouldn't we have just as much say in what the town does as we do in the physical equivalent?

Why should the governing body be able to put unconstitutional laws into effect just because the community is virtual instead of physical?

Would you move into a town that seemed cool if, when you signed the lease on the house, you saw in the contract, that the town reserves the right to demolish it for any purpose, at any time, no questions asked? Granted, this has actually happened, or at least towns have tried. But at least in those cases, the people affected had the option to fight it.

Depends on who's constitution is a virtual world is to go by. In some countries, a landlord can legally knock on your door, say he's getting out the renting buisness and have you out by the next day and that would be the end of it.

I see the concept and I think eventually something like this will become more and more upfront. Yet, the main thing is one, there was no contract to sign in this virtual world. And the only agreement or some may call that a contract specificaly says that they can basically kick you out anytime and reason any moment and when you click ok, you agree to those terms. The other option would have been, just as if you came up to a landlord with that stipulation, is to keep walking and not sign.

One law that wont pass, especially here, where many people that make the laws are probably more buisness people than gamers/average consumers, is laws that will force a company to continue a product that they wish to terminate at the risk of losing money, profits, or a silk tie. While many would think it's odd that a company would give away and sit on a product that may be profitable, it is their right to do that just as much as it's an individual person's right to continue to hold on to a pair of jeans they have not worn in years, may not be planning on wearing, or may wear tomorrow or not. No one would liek to be forced to give up cloths in their closet that they paid for, just because the guy next door wants to wear those jeans.

A buisness's goal is to make money in any way that legal, even sometimes borderline legal. While some find ethics, and thinking about the consumer may increase profits, but I can gurantee that if ethics and caring about the customer didnt have any bearing on the profits or how much a product they sold, i.e they have a monopoly of producing a needful product, they wont give a hoot what the people say or think. 

While I think virtual world rights will come into play one day but it's a can of worms and a game company shutting down a game is merely a tip of the iceberg that must be considered to as far as comparing real world rights with virtual world rights. For example, in the public forum community (public place in real world) a person goes off and insults people, ranting and raving and lot of times nothing happens. Shouldnt a person have rights to protect them from that type of behavior if the virtual world rights were to mimic real world rights? Sure mods, sometimes do their job and remove the person but lot of times, especially on COH forum, the behavior continues and get worse and worse. In the real world that is called harassment and can land someone in jail and or with a fine. And if the police do not do their job, there are steps that can ber taken that can land the police in trouble and or be sued. That is just a mnor example of how deep virtual world rights would have to go to be implemented effectively and not to mention enforcement, who would enforce them, what would happen if these things are not enforced, or rules are broken and ect when it comes to human rights. As is, the enforcement have hard enough time keeping up with virtual world stuff that cause harm in real world situation like child molestation people.

Dont get me wrong I dont think your idea is bad at all, but might be a wonderful idea but I dont think it will be easy to put into practice, especially when trying to encroach on the rights of a property holder and the agreement is signed everytime a person logs in. Not saying it makes it right but that will be the first line of defense and in a lot of cases, when it comes to contracts, it's up to the person to read it and if they sign it, it's assuming they are legal age and sound mind, that they know what they are getting into and agree to what they signed.

Codewalker

  • Hero of the City
  • Titan Network Admin
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,735
  • Moar Dots!
Re: "no reason" and no rights
« Reply #22 on: October 12, 2012, 07:28:26 PM »
And the only agreement or some may call that a contract specificaly says that they can basically kick you out anytime and reason any moment and when you click ok, you agree to those terms. The other option would have been, just as if you came up to a landlord with that stipulation, is to keep walking and not sign.

Other than the obvious lack of a signature (which isn't strictly required if goods have been delivered, but there are some limitations on that), there's one other important difference between a license agreement and a contract.

If I don't like the terms of a contract with a landlord, I can cross out a phrase and send it back, effectively making a counteroffer. Now the landlord may laugh in my face (and indeed some large companies effectively do that), but I have the option. In a lot of cases if they want to rent the space enough, they'll be willing to at least consider it.

With a license agreement, there's nobody to send it to. Even in the unlikely circumstance that I manage to track down their legal department, and even if I do get them to accept a counteroffer, the agreement on the screen will still display the original text. Does clicking 'I agree' undo my counteroffer? It's a completely one-sided agreement, which is something that contract law forbids.

gandales

  • Underling
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: "no reason" and no rights
« Reply #23 on: October 12, 2012, 08:21:40 PM »
Other than the obvious lack of a signature (which isn't strictly required if goods have been delivered, but there are some limitations on that), there's one other important difference between a license agreement and a contract.

If I don't like the terms of a contract with a landlord, I can cross out a phrase and send it back, effectively making a counteroffer. Now the landlord may laugh in my face (and indeed some large companies effectively do that), but I have the option. In a lot of cases if they want to rent the space enough, they'll be willing to at least consider it.

With a license agreement, there's nobody to send it to. Even in the unlikely circumstance that I manage to track down their legal department, and even if I do get them to accept a counteroffer, the agreement on the screen will still display the original text. Does clicking 'I agree' undo my counteroffer? It's a completely one-sided agreement, which is something that contract law forbids.

I would love to see blizzard processing 9M of counteroffers. Indeed you have an option that is to not play the game. It is not different when a store stays that all prices are final, so no haggling .

I know a lot of people like to have the master evil corporations that are reason of all wrongs of makind. Imagine that for the same reason it was state that Paragon staff could not quit their jobs because they need to keep the game up.

Same line of reason that would avoid companies from discontinuing old products. What it could agreeable is how long before closing the notice needs to be given, maybe 3 months sounds too short.

Colette

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 469
Re: "no reason" and no rights
« Reply #24 on: October 12, 2012, 08:56:42 PM »
"I think the copyrighted characters would become public domain in a few decades, but that's it."

Seventy years under US law. For example, HP Lovecraft's work entered public domain in 2007.

Corporations, due to their status as imaginary people, can hold copyrights indefinitely provided they reset the clock through publication from time to time.

"..we're all victims of an entirely new frontier of human experience here...."

Essentially true. Mind, NCSoftcore is technically within the letter of their rights, though there's obvious bad faith and chicanery. What I'm advocating is that we as users just stop paying money for MMOs until we get more for our money. I know that's idealistic and impossible, but it's what I plan to do. Mind, I don't even like MMOs, with CoH being the one amazing exception.

downix

  • Phoenix Project Technical Lead
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,964
Re: "no reason" and no rights
« Reply #25 on: October 12, 2012, 09:03:14 PM »
I would love to see blizzard processing 9M of counteroffers. Indeed you have an option that is to not play the game. It is not different when a store stays that all prices are final, so no haggling .

I know a lot of people like to have the master evil corporations that are reason of all wrongs of makind. Imagine that for the same reason it was state that Paragon staff could not quit their jobs because they need to keep the game up.

Same line of reason that would avoid companies from discontinuing old products. What it could agreeable is how long before closing the notice needs to be given, maybe 3 months sounds too short.
The issue is that you already paid for the game, without access to the ELUA beforehand. And per copyright rules, you cannot return that game for money back should you disagree with the EULA.

Segev

  • Plan Z: Interim Producer
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,573
Re: "no reason" and no rights
« Reply #26 on: October 12, 2012, 09:06:56 PM »
What does copyright have to do with whether you can return the game or not?

Codewalker

  • Hero of the City
  • Titan Network Admin
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,735
  • Moar Dots!
Re: "no reason" and no rights
« Reply #27 on: October 12, 2012, 09:07:50 PM »
My point was that "playing a game" is not something that should be covered under contract law or having to agree to 20-page documents to do.

Litigious society or not, I don't have to sign a disclaimer every time I order a beefy burrito from Taco Bell. That's just a handy excuse for them to hide behind.

Kheprera

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 278
Re: "no reason" and no rights
« Reply #28 on: October 12, 2012, 09:42:13 PM »
Not saying that this is what happens all the time, but AFAIK it has *never* been for "copyright rules" that games/software are unable to be returned for a refund.

Actually, I can say in the U.S. stores *do* refuse open box software returns due to copyright protection laws.

They will only exchange it for the exact same product if the software has been opened because of the ease in which people can copy the game disks.  It's to stop software piracy and has been around at *least* since 1994, which was when I went to work for the long defunct Computer City.  The return policy was like that when I started and companies have gotten more hardcore about returns. 

After what I've seen as a CSR, I can't exactly blame them.  How does a customer mistake a *brick* for a video card?

dwturducken

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,150
  • Now available in stereo
Re: "no reason" and no rights
« Reply #29 on: October 12, 2012, 10:09:15 PM »
I realize that I've usually been very vocally supportive of the variety of efforts, here, and keeping it varied as a means to keeping people engaged and interested, but Holy @#$% have you picked a big one, here.

Yes, the EFF would likely be interested in this, as a matter of some principle, but we would have to make a compelling case. I think this whole line of reasoning is good, and I agree with the major points (I would point out, though, that MOO3 was a steaming pile), but this probably not a fight we would win.  And, even if we did, Google "Windows tax" for how ineffective winning could still end up being.

I've always had a strong sense of this being a fight for what is right, not what we think we can win, but There are other people already fighting this kind of fight, and they've been doing it longer.  If we really want to do this, we need them involved. Otherwise, just by sheer scale, I see this one being a major tangent from the main efforts.  I think, if we had to pick between this and Plan Z, Plan Z would be the better option for community morale and cohesion.
I wouldn't use the word "replace," but there's no word for "take over for you and make everything better almost immediately," so we just say "replace."

JaguarX

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,411
Re: "no reason" and no rights
« Reply #30 on: October 12, 2012, 11:12:48 PM »
My point was that "playing a game" is not something that should be covered under contract law or having to agree to 20-page documents to do.

Litigious society or not, I don't have to sign a disclaimer every time I order a beefy burrito from Taco Bell. That's just a handy excuse for them to hide behind.

Ah now you see what I'm getting at.

Given that there is no contract means that they are not bound to keep a product going at all. If they decide to pull the plug at any moment, whether it's a day notice or ten year notice, and return money for unrendered service then they did what they were suppose to do legally. 

Now, if there is to be virtual rights when it comes to this, like how long should a product last and the steps it will take before a game should be shutdown, (as someone compared to be evicted) then a contract probably will be needed. The question is how can that contract be enforced and or even be actually signed in a virtual world?

So the million dollar question is if one was to go about changing the way that game suppliers(using it loosely) do buisness with shutdown of games and destroying online communities, then what angle approach would have to be taken given the nature of the difference between real life in person and virtual world where you can basically create whoever a person wants to be?

TimtheEnchanter

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,466
  • There are some who call me... Tim?
Re: "no reason" and no rights
« Reply #31 on: October 12, 2012, 11:15:49 PM »
This is probably going to end up being a lot longer than I'd prefer, but it's a lot of stuff to cover. And I'm guessing we're all cool with having political discussion in this thread, since it's not specifically geared towards a certain SaveCoH project, and I don't know how politics CAN'T come up when rights are being discussed. If not, or if everyone eventually ends up biting each other's heads off, then I'll just shut up about it.

Generally speaking, there ARE no constitutions without the consent of the governed.

More precisely, in the case of these virtual worlds maintained through IP belonging to corporate bodies, they're not civilizations nor communities that fall under the rights-based jurisdiction of any one nation. Or, to hold to your analogy, they're dictatorships and oligarchies.

I understand the grief and anger and irritation and frustration of having your community meeting site destroyed. It's awful. But it's nothing that dictators - modern and historical - couldn't or didn't do in the real world. It's far less atrocious in our case with our virtual world and its associated community: no sentient beings are being slain nor having their real-world lives uprooted in highly destructive ways. It still sucks, it still hurts, but it's not the end of their RL world.

I wouldn't suggest that something like this would be enforced on any current project, but that it be something that gradually needs to be worked towards.

International agreements are happening all the time though, particularly where business is concerned. Though usually when it happens, it's being done to push either consumers, or small businesses, further back into a corner. Even some nations that have wildly different opinions on human rights, have sometimes agreed to business-related laws in the past. I'm not suggesting that one could pass a law that governs the entire Earth on such matters, since it's certainly never happened with any other issue.

For what you said about consent, I'm not sure if you're referring to the fact that corporations would have to let such a bill go through, or the fact that our "constitution" is consented to by clicking the "I agree to the terms and conditions" checkbox, or both.

Quote
If one wishes to forge a virtual world with a constitutional rule of law wherein the "governing body" is answerable to the players in the way the US government is theoretically answerable to the people, one must establish that world under that premise. "revolution" to take over virtual worlds run by dictatorships won't work, and wouldn't be ethical. Convincing them to turn it over, to sell it, to change their policies is fine...if you can. It's what we're trying to do with NCSoft. But let's not empower any real-world governments more than they already are by trying to give the GOVERNMENT say in how our virtual worlds will run.

I know we've talked over this in PM (and sorry for taking so long to respond last time, been pretty burned out the past few days and haven't felt capable of deep convo till today), here's my viewpoint on why I fear that governments are needed to enforce rules more often than not. Though I don't think it's the same kind of regulation that you're probably thinking of. I'm mostly concerned about the relationships between business and customer. We've come a very long way from how trade used to work. Haggling was the common practice, and we've gone from that to, "Take it or leave it", which to me is a great power imbalance. While one can argue, "That's not true, because other businesses try different strategies in order to be competitive", how often does that happen? How many food chains will haggle a price with a customer? How many hotdog bun companies are selling packs of 8? How many businesses aren't profiting from your personal info (after requiring you to give it to them for free as part of a contract)? We very rarely have the freedom to say, "Well if you're going to run your business that way, then I'll go to one that doesn't", because they're all run the same way, circumstantially forcing us into unsatisfactory dealings. It's like having one big megacorporation, but since there's no partnerships and no money actually changing hands, there's no legal reason for ringing the anti-trust alarm. It simply "is."

It all seems to boil down to this. if we leave everything to, "Which way is more profitable?" then nothing will ever change. Alternatively, the apathetic portion of the population would have to become the minority, which I don't realistically see ever happening. That leaves the smarter mutant sheep to try and accomplish things entirely on their own. The amount of shaking we we've been able to accomplish with SaveCoH is almost an anomaly, but it also makes too much sense, given that we have the hero mentality. In the classic sense, that's exactly what Heroes are, the ones who rise above the masses to do what others are either unable or unwilling to do. But when it comes to affecting legal change, it rarely matters, because the masses are always too busy running the other way, chasing whatever carrot that is being dangled in front of them; demonstrated quite effectively by this video that is poking fun at EA. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-LE0ycgkBQ

Based on all we've been over, the options for improving the business/customer relationship are:

1. Find a non-forceful way to get businesses to think more ethically (there is no incentive for them to think more ethnically because the entire foundation of modern business is to maximize profit by any means necessary)

2. Better educate people to be smarter so they can think more critically and collectively (this is sort of a paradox to me, because if people were good enough to handle things like this on their own, we probably wouldn't need governments at all - and when it comes to society in general, I don't have as much faith in humans as Jor-El)

3. Impose government restrictions against ****ing the consumer (apparently that always translates into socialism, which is somehow evil red commie of the modern age. but how many people out there would say price gouging is bad? If they say yes, then whether they like it or not, they're thinking like a socialist)

Quote
If needs be, we can and should build our own - or at least try. Then we can establish whatever governing rules we deem wise.

It would be a very interesting business experiment, to run an MMO more like a government than a business, giving the players real power over what directions the game takes, maybe even to the point of budget decisions (or suggestions anyway). Such as "What do you want to see most? Worlds? Power sets? Costumes? Community tools?" and let the voting process dictate how it goes. And not limited to forums either so that only the minority of players ever discuss it. Bring the experience into the game, notify the players via the interface. Invite them to talk and let them know their input is desired. Heck, you could have some real fun with it and use the in-game city hall for actual meetings.

While I think virtual world rights will come into play one day but it's a can of worms and a game company shutting down a game is merely a tip of the iceberg that must be considered to as far as comparing real world rights with virtual world rights. For example, in the public forum community (public place in real world) a person goes off and insults people, ranting and raving and lot of times nothing happens. Shouldnt a person have rights to protect them from that type of behavior if the virtual world rights were to mimic real world rights? Sure mods, sometimes do their job and remove the person but lot of times, especially on COH forum, the behavior continues and get worse and worse. In the real world that is called harassment and can land someone in jail and or with a fine. And if the police do not do their job, there are steps that can ber taken that can land the police in trouble and or be sued. That is just a mnor example of how deep virtual world rights would have to go to be implemented effectively and not to mention enforcement, who would enforce them, what would happen if these things are not enforced, or rules are broken and ect when it comes to human rights. As is, the enforcement have hard enough time keeping up with virtual world stuff that cause harm in real world situation like child molestation people.

You just brought up an example of how business is already too powerful. Take a look at how Facebook is not only ignoring, but admittedly harboring bullying. They allow bullies and even bully groups to run rampant, and it's next to impossible for authorities to step in and accomplish something no matter how bad it gets. (it's also an example of the choicelessness I mentioned above, because teens are stuck with the choice of either using Facebook or having no social life, which means they have to open themselves up to constant bullying). But in some parts of Europe, trolling and E-bullying is now punishable by law.

Whether or not it is the responsibility of businesses to crack down on this themselves is anyone's guess. But in those cases, it's not the business that's doing the bullying, so I don't think it really implies to the kind of control I was suggesting. Though there are some cases where businesses ARE doing the bullying. The hiring of professional trolls is becoming a part of marketing. They go to random forums and solicit products, and/or derail negative discussions about those products until they get locked or removed by admins. That's pretty frigging sick. Yet one more thing that is out of control. There is no limit to how much lying a business can do to make their product look better than it is, even to the point of creating fake people to praise it or bully those who don't.

JaguarX

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,411
Re: "no reason" and no rights
« Reply #32 on: October 12, 2012, 11:18:09 PM »
Actually, I can say in the U.S. stores *do* refuse open box software returns due to copyright protection laws.

They will only exchange it for the exact same product if the software has been opened because of the ease in which people can copy the game disks.  It's to stop software piracy and has been around at *least* since 1994, which was when I went to work for the long defunct Computer City.  The return policy was like that when I started and companies have gotten more hardcore about returns. 

After what I've seen as a CSR, I can't exactly blame them.  How does a customer mistake a *brick* for a video card?

That is true now in days especially at Walmart, CompUSA and various other places. If it's been open, they wont take it back. If a person is lucky they may be able to talk them into getting store credit but in the end that money is gone one way or another and the seller (walmart and etc) still will lose not a cent in the deal.

Even thought a tad off subject, what exactly is being purchased when one buys an MMO from the store? Of course one month free sub. comes with purchase but given that it's free that is not what is being purchased. This stems fro mthe point with buying a game prior to seeing the EULA. My guess is that the software to access the game and program that are needed to be stored on the cmputer is what a person is actually purchasing. And even if the game shutdowns, then basically that remains, although useless at that time, the purchase of the owner. While with the subscription is where a person is purchasing the actual service to play the game. I might be wrong about it, feel free to add proper information.

JaguarX

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,411
Re: "no reason" and no rights
« Reply #33 on: October 12, 2012, 11:27:36 PM »


You just brought up an example of how business is already too powerful. Take a look at how Facebook is not only ignoring, but admittedly harboring bullying. They allow bullies and even bully groups to run rampant, and it's next to impossible for authorities to step in and accomplish something no matter how bad it gets. (it's also an example of the choicelessness I mentioned above, because teens are stuck with the choice of either using Facebook or having no social life, which means they have to open themselves up to constant bullying). But in some parts of Europe, trolling and E-bullying is now punishable by law.

Whether or not it is the responsibility of businesses to crack down on this themselves is anyone's guess. But in those cases, it's not the business that's doing the bullying, so I don't think it really implies to the kind of control I was suggesting. Though there are some cases where businesses ARE doing the bullying. The hiring of professional unicorns is becoming a part of marketing. They go to random forums and solicit products, and/or derail negative discussions about those products until they get locked or removed by admins. That's pretty frigging sick. Yet one more thing that is out of control. There is no limit to how much lying a business can do to make their product look better than it is, even to the point of creating fake people to praise it or bully those who don't.

Percisely.

It's gotten to a point where many teens feel or are made to feel that there is no way t have a social life without social media. If you put two i na room together face to face, they probably stare at each other awkwardly. In my day, after a hot minute, a conversations starts and topics probably will start with wtf are we doing here and eventually end up talking about cars or something.

About that trolling law, they threw around that idea for Stateside, some would say due to facebook, maybe not, but facebook was used in many examples during the talks. The hump is who and what would decide on what is trolling and not and what to do and and how to prove trolling that is not textbook over the top and more subliminal. Not to mention freedom of speech. My personal feel is to trat like it would be treated in real life. If someone is "trolling" in real life and carrying on, it's called disturbing the peace.  Then also as you mentioned, another bump is who responsiblility is it? I see it will take a few more people killing themselves and someone being successful in a multimillion dollar lawsuit before you get those jokers to get on it. Ever had those moments where you wished you had a cattle prod?

And with power, you can bet on any mother's grave that they are not exactly itching to give up that power that they obtained.


oh by the way sorry for the spelling errors as I'm typing on this blasted German keyboard and some keys are in different places than what I'm used to. Bloody Elainia and her German keyboard.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2012, 11:34:00 PM by JaguarX »

NecrotechMaster

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 388
  • is there a badge for that?
Re: "no reason" and no rights
« Reply #34 on: October 12, 2012, 11:42:23 PM »
i agree that EULAs are there to provide all that legal coverage for them, however, i dont think that the "no reason" portion should ever come in to play

when a game is shut down there is ALWAYS a reason, most of the time that reason is due to being unprofitable


how i see it right now, is that currently based on what we know about coh at the time of the announcement leads to believe that the shutdown reason was nothing more than a whim by ncsoft since "realignment of company focus" is definitely just a publicity stunt to make it seem like they are not the bad guys

SithRose

  • Plan Z: Lore Lead
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,981
  • The Phoenix is coming.
    • Missing Worlds Media - Plan Z: The Phoenix Project
Re: "no reason" and no rights
« Reply #35 on: October 12, 2012, 11:43:28 PM »
It would be a very interesting business experiment, to run an MMO more like a government than a business, giving the players real power over what directions the game takes, maybe even to the point of budget decisions (or suggestions anyway). Such as "What do you want to see most? Worlds? Power sets? Costumes? Community tools?" and let the voting process dictate how it goes. And not limited to forums either so that only the minority of players ever discuss it. Bring the experience into the game, notify the players via the interface. Invite them to talk and let them know their input is desired. Heck, you could have some real fun with it and use the in-game city hall for actual meetings.

We've been discussing something similar regarding disabilities over in the Sunset forums, actually. I like this idea, personally - Player feedback is really important for a game to run well, and the best games I've played have had active, involved development and community teams. I've already suggested that we implement an "Able Gamer" test program, so that people with disabilities can give us direct feedback on how to make the game easier for them during late development. (And if we have a problem like the early-version Sonic Res, we invite the people with the problems into the testing environment to actively work with us on fixing it. That way we don't have to go through 4 iterations of a power and *still* don't get the problem fixed!)
Lore Lead for Plan Z: The Phoenix Project
Secretary of Missing Worlds Media, Inc.

Sajaana

  • Boss
  • ****
  • Posts: 106
Re: "no reason" and no rights
« Reply #36 on: October 12, 2012, 11:45:58 PM »
While I do think that some legislation is warranted for child protection issues, I think the closure of games like City of Heroes harms and limits this form of entertainment more than any legislation ever could.

Tell me.  What would have happened if those first online games in the late 90s closed up shop early and ran?  We'd be in a totally different place today.  We wouldn't have a WoW or CoH.  But the fact is that those early online games are still with us, proving to everybody that this medium is stable.  But is it stable enough?

The fact of the matter is that the longevity issue has been a sticky point with many, many potential consumers of online games.  Just asking around with my circle of friends, about a little over half of them said to me, "What if the game doesn't make any money?  Then I pay all this for nothing."  And, you know, I really have no way to respond to that question anymore.

And I think, at this time, the issue is getting worse, not better.  I heard that one game, I think it was APB, closed in 80 days...80 days.  And if an entertainment product like City of Heroes can be taken away, frankly, any entertainment product like this can be taken away.

I can tell you this much, for a game like this to work, and for a person to invest in it, you have to put a player's mind at ease.  It's hard to do that when you are always thinking in the back of your mind, "What if this all disappears tomorrow?"  There was a time that I never had to seriously ask that question before.  But thanks to games like Star Wars Galaxies and, now, City of Heroes, I can't help but ask that question whenever I think about getting into another online game.

And perhaps that's good.  Perhaps that's wise.  At least my friends who declined to play, the ones who asked "What if the game doesn't make any money?" aren't upset, like I am with NCSoft.  :(

TimtheEnchanter

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,466
  • There are some who call me... Tim?
Re: "no reason" and no rights
« Reply #37 on: October 13, 2012, 12:06:35 AM »
I can tell you this much, for a game like this to work, and for a person to invest in it, you have to put a player's mind at ease.  It's hard to do that when you are always thinking in the back of your mind, "What if this all disappears tomorrow?"  There was a time that I never had to seriously ask that question before.  But thanks to games like Star Wars Galaxies and, now, City of Heroes, I can't help but ask that question whenever I think about getting into another online game.

In the case of SWG, SOE was forced to close it. They didn't want to. So it's sort of like what happened to PS, though it was for a vastly different reason.

It's even worse if you look at SWTOR. That game had infinite resources to develop it, somewhere upward of 500mil, and Bioware was so convinced that it was bragging about having 500 worlds in the year 2025. 6 months in and the game was already in trouble.

These MMO's are starting to feel like the stereotypical person hanging out in a bar who is looking for a cheap 1-night stand while making empty promises of loving you forever.

Zolgar

  • Grand Poobah of Plan Z
  • Boss
  • ****
  • Posts: 164
Re: "no reason" and no rights
« Reply #38 on: October 13, 2012, 01:05:06 AM »
i agree that EULAs are there to provide all that legal coverage for them, however, i dont think that the "no reason" portion should ever come in to play

when a game is shut down there is ALWAYS a reason, most of the time that reason is due to being unprofitable


how i see it right now, is that currently based on what we know about coh at the time of the announcement leads to believe that the shutdown reason was nothing more than a whim by ncsoft since "realignment of company focus" is definitely just a publicity stunt to make it seem like they are not the bad guys

The "no reason" covers them in case of shit happening that they can't tell people about. It's unlikely, and AFAIK aside from CoH there has never been an actual use of the 'no reason' clause. TECHNICALLY, there was a reason given with CoH even- a BS reason maybe, but a reason.

Aquashock

  • Boss
  • ****
  • Posts: 199
Re: "no reason" and no rights
« Reply #39 on: October 13, 2012, 01:20:01 AM »
I wish there was more ethical thought put into the preservation of human culture and effort behind decisions like NC's. To them, this might be another purely business decision but to me it's another sign that we don't have a safety net here for digital culture. Our culture has embraced the abilities of the internet but we haven't really considered how to -preserve- our efforts and the control wielded by corporate entities is overwhelming.

Without projects like the Wayback Machine, our records would be gone. So many of them already are. There needs to be a realization that our history is important and should be maintained. The digital aspects of our culture should be preserved. Every time this happens, another hole is created in our record. If the MMO as a concept dies, what will be left of it to remember?