One thing I would add to what you said is that I would consider some live service games art. No Man's Sky and Warframe are two examples I still regularly play that would be a shame if they got shut down.
I agree. The only issue with live service titles is the complexity that varies in scale and scope. It could be an online ecosystem to monetize the title. It could be an online event system tied to rewards. It could be all computational (and procedurally generated). Or, any combination. Most cracked live service titles decouple the monetisation and rewards, and DRM.
DRM is what it is, a software application that is managing the digital rights of the content. Within reason, all of this, with consent, can be removed. Falling back to a more conventional right of use.
The problem starts when the live service, the actual game or user experience is dependent on a hosted service. If, and a third party is willing to create, maintain, and provide additional support for such service. This is after live service has reached end of service. Now, this is already being done with some games, some of which have resulted in lawsuits of its own. For this to exist, an instrument should be established that of a right that is freely licensed to vetted parties for allowing continuity.
IP still needs to be protected. A right must be given to allow permission to, in broad speak, engineer the content, all within reason. Then you arrive at the point of sustaining this, funding such licensed projects, and arguably, the owner has a right to this funding too if their IP is used. It is a minefield.
It is also reasonable for a content owner not to create competition for itself. We want developers and publishers to make money, in terms of expecting better quality.
Yes, generally, I am of the view that a game should be designed with continuity in mind for handovers, and this should not only be baked into a game, but also in its licence. Having an "offline mode" of sorts, rendering "online play (required)" as obsolete. This could be 'powered' via distribution, for example Steam's workshop.
The final part of the problem is the actual ownership of the IP/content, that is itself layered, and very complicated if ownership is restructured via acquisition or any form of relinquishment. This is why it is important for me to get games a protective status similar to, or within the same framework as art. This varies also on jurisdiction, applicable law, etc.
I will fight for game preservation until the very end. Everyone has an opinion, but it's up to the legal minds to make any sense and validity of it. This is a sphere where there are legal minds protecting IP too. A balance has to be found.
To be more on topic, subscription services are limited in capacity, only that many titles can be catered for within a budgetary cycle. The use licences many have come to love and appreciate as a form of ownership is not going away, except if cloud gaming gains dominance in the faraway future, if ever.
Then lastly, speaking of ownership, after all of these years, and through marketing, one could technically argue that a use licence is a sense of ownership. We have been buying our games, "buy now", and all that, and that is what has been implied before being granted a EULA. It is within this spectrum that I say the right to use can't be arbitrarily limited.
Sign up with Google
