"Games as a service" is fraud

An interesting video with a good argument.


The most comprehensive video on "games as a service" and why it's fraud that you're likely to see. WARNING: This is more boring than my usual videos.
This was created as the beginning of an effort to get law authorities to examine this practice. Feel free to contact me about this topic. Contents below:
2:45 Definition
8:09 Goods and Services
9:52 Legal argument: Games are goods
17:08 Legal argument: Ownership of goods
24:24 Legal argument: Programmed Obsolescence
31:21 Intermission
31:51 Conceptual Argument on games being services
42:23 Preservation Argument on games being services
47:31 Counterarguments & Concerns
1:10:00 Ending + Plan of what to do

It's only another milking business model and as such is not fraud.
Even if it's based on delivering low quality stuff, still isn't fraud - as long as it doesn't contain gambling.

IMO a product that is not a full/complete videogame but a "service" needs to be marked as such. Just as we don't see "free" any more, but instead there is "install" or "get" on phones, gaas products need to display "install service" on the button and shouldn't be advertised as videogames but videogame services.

The crowdfunded scene is neither a fraud.

Fortunately I tend to replay older games more than purchasing current releases, so this is mostly irrelevant to me. I certainly agree that this area needs vigilant oversight, just to keep the sheep away from the wolves.

Originally Posted by joxer
It's only another milking business model and as such is not fraud.
Even if it's based on delivering low quality stuff, still isn't fraud - as long as it doesn't contain gambling.

IMO a product that is not a full/complete videogame but a "service" needs to be marked as such. Just as we don't see "free" any more, but instead there is "install" or "get" on phones, gaas products need to display "install service" on the button and shouldn't be advertised as videogames but videogame services.

As per usual, it's evident that you didn't watch the video.

Also, there's a difference between "it's not fraud" and "I don't care if it's fraud" from the perspective of reality.

Originally Posted by lackblogger
you didn't watch the video.

Axiom. My nick ain't Chien.

I've commented the topic with few brief sentences you can read in less than a minute. Sorry for I don't have time to waste on biography videos. Don't expect me to film own videos as response on any mundanity.

Theres a bunch of aspects that are similar to fraud for sure.

Its not specific to gaming either.

Mining, Auto, Agriculture, Medical Tech, equipment has been loaded with "service" software that adds little value but firmly ties the equipment solely to the manufacturer. Every service, part replacement, tracking data, etc is all routed to the manufacturer and in the case of repairs or service, actually requires an override allowance from the manufacturer (at a cost) if their dealer didn't perform the service.

Ah yes the old snake oil salesman. It's a time honored practice in a new skin.

Semi related, but the "right to repair" movement is interesting. I couldn't imagine paying half a mil for a machine and then being told I couldn't change an air or oil filter.

Originally Posted by lackblogger
Also, there's a difference between "it's not fraud" and "I don't care if it's fraud" from the perspective of reality.

Good statement. < this is the part where I acknowlege lackblogger made a good point.


Everything below this line is my opinion which in no way obligates Lackblogger to agree or disagree.
________________________
I feel the same way about privacy and freedom of speech issues.
Whether or not I have anything to hide, or have anything to say, doesn't stop it from being an issue.

Originally Posted by Wisdom
Good statement.
I feel the same way about privacy and freedom of speech issues.
Whether or not I have anything to hide, or have anything to say, doesn't stop it from being an issue.

Freedom of speech and privacy is a much more detailed and subjective topic than the rather more obvious and objective nature of being mis-sold something. Though I commend you on taking every opportunity to look for angles to preach your current political agendas, whatever they may be.

I apologize that you were unable to summon the mental fortitude to draw correlations between your statement and other issues that contain similar themes. While I commend you on your ability to examine an issue in isolation, I encourage you to broaden those horizons.

Edit: I editted my previous comment to try and clear it up.

I think we're in a period where the law hasn't really caught up with technology, and there's a lot of undecided legal grey area that is being exploited in certain quarters.

In regard to freedom of speech, etc, I think we have the same problem. I mean, if a private company wants to ban someone from their platform for whatever reason, that's fine. But I think we need to look at the fact the digital public square is now essentially in the hands of a couple of massive corporations. I think we have a problem when people can be removed from the de facto public square based on the judgement of private parties, without due process.

Sounds like some folks here want the government to define what is and is not the "de facto public square"

LOL. Slippery slopes ahead!

Originally Posted by FizzyShellfish
Sounds like some folks here want the government to define what is and is not the "de facto public square"

LOL. Slippery slopes ahead!

Probably a necessary evil nowadays given a few tech giants control the "de facto public square". It's called digital unpersoning and they have the power to do so to anyone.

Ready to see EA sweat?

Wow, about time! I have to say I'm impressed, I had very little faith this would get resolved in time to have any great effect. +1 to the USA here.

Originally Posted by FizzyShellfish
Sounds like some folks here want the government to define what is and is not the "de facto public square"

LOL. Slippery slopes ahead!

Well, not exactly wanting the government to define it, but rather that society needs to have a bit of a think about some of these issues. I think there's a slippery slope on both sides, and rather hard to balance on top. That's where I think there needs to be some new law thrashed out, as we thrashed out laws on many other things before the information revolution. It won't be perfect, but I think we need to grasp the nettle.

If, for example, the US Constitution were being drafted today, I suspect issues of freedom and surveillance on the internet would loom large in their thinking.

Originally Posted by Ripper

If, for example, the US Constitution were being drafted today, I suspect issues of freedom and surveillance on the internet would loom large in their thinking.

Not sure about that.

I think the way the people in the US thought years ago had more of the peoples interest at heart. Though I have no way of proving that.

Just that most had left lives over sea's and fought, killed ect to be in the new land. (new land to them)

I could go on but I think we all know not many care about anything but what is important to them. For most in power or looking for power is more of it…

As for games….and this thread

I just don't buy many of them any more…CD and Obsidian are about the only companies i trust right now.