"Games as a service" is fraud. - Accursed Farms

[Deleted member 10629]

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

Click to shrink...

It is kinda long but I encourage you to watch it entirely, but if you need a tl;dw: Games are goods, not services. And GaaS are not even services because they don't even fill the criteria for being one (expectation of how much a service lasts, general expectations when a service has been finished, real world resources that are required for a service to continue).

I do agree with him, he has a lot of compelling, valid arguments.

Thanks to lashman for making me aware of this video.

Edit : Thanks to Razorrin for sharing this reddit post from user Roegnvaldr posted on r/pcgaming with a more detailed TL;DW

TL;DW: Under several laws in many countries and continents, a game sold/F2P with MTX of any sort is considered to be selling GOODS, not Services (Subscription models are exempt due to having descriptions of when the service ends). Regardless of what EULAs say, the actual governamental law defines that goods need to be usable at any point after purchase and software, as a good, does belong to the one who purchased the product.

Ross's argument is that the "GaaS" is not a service, but acts as one in order to be able to shut down games after they start being unprofitable. He only requests that companies give players a reasonable way to play games after the servers are shut down.

He has MANY good arguments and spitting out criticisms without taking the whole video in is a great disservice to both the person doing the "criticism" as well as to the work compiled by Ross.

You may not care about games dying. That's fine. Ross's point is that GaaS are being sold as something they are not and thus fraudulent, therefore requiring the intervention of the law. It's not an attack towards you or your attitude towards how companies handle online-only games - it's an attack on said companies mishandling their product after they cease giving support to it.

Click to shrink...

Main arguments slides in the video:

 

[Zephy]

I have a stricter definition for game as a service than most, it seems. And I don't understand why so many games are considered Gaas now.

To me, Gaas are games that, due to the way they are designed, can only work as long as a server is running. For example, an MMO, or an exclusively online game that has to constantly communicate with the server to generate missions. It requires people actually manning it to continue running. This is a service.

Games like Horizon, the Witcher 3, etc, that receive continued support through DLCs, are not services. They are goods that you can own forever. Their additional content are additional goods you can purchase. The fact that developpers continue to create more content doesn't suddenly turn a goods into a service.

But what do I know.

 

[Deleted member 2474]

Damn, Freeman's Mind took a weird turn

 

[M. Wallace]

I can watch this to burn the first hour of Endgame while in the theater.

 

[Deleted member 48897]

Games are goods, not services. And GaaS are not even services because they don't even fill the criteria for being one (expectation of how much a service lasts, general expectations when a service has been finished, real world resources that are required for a service to continue).

Click to shrink...

As someone who does software things for a living, I don't actually particularly agree with this premise. A lot of the work I'm doing right now is trying to maintain and add functionality to old tools that have existed for many (many) years. The idea that software should just get launched out into the public as a final build and never be updated or receive support doesn't match up well with the way that it is designed, developed, or distributed. Especially for things where the focus is less of a narrative experience and more, for lack of a better term, sandboxy, the service model is actually a better one to describe it than the idea that it's a product.

Heck, it was arguably like this back in the day, just under a different and more cumbersome guise. The reason you wouldn't think about this in the 90s, for example, is that there were like 10 revisions of Street Fighter II that came out rather than a single version of the game that got regularly modified, expanded, and updated on its own.

 

[Deleted member 6730]

The game doesn't serve you, you serve the game.

 

[thecaseace]

I have a stricter definition for game as a service than most, it seems. And I don't understand why so many games are considered Gaas now.

To me, Gaas are games that, due to the way they are designed, can only work as long as a server is running. For example, an MMO, or an exclusively online game that has to constantly communicate with the server to generate missions. It requires people actually manning it to continue running. This is a service.

Games like Horizon, the Witcher 3, etc, that receive continued support through DLCs, are not services. They are goods that you can own forever. Their additional content are additional goods you can purchase. The fact that developpers continue to create more content doesn't suddenly turn a goods into a service.

But what do I know.

Click to shrink...

Seems like a fairly sensible definition compared to the everything is GaaS version at the mo

 

[AmbientRuin]

Seems like a fairly sensible definition compared to the everything is GaaS version at the mo

Click to shrink...

It still means Quake, Half Life and Unreal Tournament were Games as a Service as they all used servers as online required a server and someone maintaining it. In fact, it now means any online multiplayer game is one.

 

[Crossing Eden]

I don't understand why so many games are considered Gaas now.

Click to shrink...

Because a significant amount of developers/publishers are actively pursuing that model with differing kinds of post launch support dependent on the title.

 

[Azoor]

I don't think he understands the fact that most devs don't actually want to shut down their games, they do it mostly because they have no other choice. It's really not planned obsolescence. People don't make games and plan to shut them down in five years or so, they shut it down because they don't have the money to run it anymore and sometimes don't see the financial point of doing so.

 

[fade]

GaaS is a bunch of hot gas?

 

[fr0st]

I can watch this to burn the first hour of Endgame while in the theater.

Click to shrink...

Bruh you gonna watch during the movie?

 

[Kaivan]

I have a stricter definition for game as a service than most, it seems. And I don't understand why so many games are considered Gaas now.

To me, Gaas are games that, due to the way they are designed, can only work as long as a server is running. For example, an MMO, or an exclusively online game that has to constantly communicate with the server to generate missions. It requires people actually manning it to continue running. This is a service.

Games like Horizon, the Witcher 3, etc, that receive continued support through DLCs, are not services. They are goods that you can own forever. Their additional content are additional goods you can purchase. The fact that developpers continue to create more content doesn't suddenly turn a goods into a service.

But what do I know.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, I do agree with you. We can also throw offline-able games with various online currencies into the mix, like Mordor, Assassin's Creed, and Mortal Kombat. They're also service games.

But games that received support with DLCs are not service games. I have no idea why would people push that notion.

 

[StayHandsome]

My internal definition for GAAS comes down to game models that are attempting to be addictive, rather than simply satisfying.

Games with addictive progression systems are trying to keep you engaged as long and as steadily as possible. Daily quests, daily loot boxes, whatever are all intentionally addictive functions that want to keep the player coming back regularly.

Not the real definition by any means but that's basically how I see it.

 

[Crossing Eden]

To me, Gaas are games that, due to the way they are designed, can only work as long as a server is running.

Click to shrink...

That's not what the industry definition of GaaS is. It's a title by title basis when it comes to how devs support the title after the initial launch. Most people try to redefine the term and narrow it down for genuinely no reason. It's not even a remotely confusing concept.

 

[Deleted member 11413]

I don't think he understands the fact that most devs don't actually want to shut down their games, they do it mostly because they have no other choice. It's really not planned obsolescence. People don't make games and plan to shut them down in five years or so, they shut it down because they don't have the money to run it anymore and sometimes don't see the financial point of doing so.

Click to shrink...

I'm sure that applies more to publishers than developers, though what you've said is true for indie developers. It's not true for, let's say, Sony, who certainly has money to sustain services for longer than they do but choose not to.

 

[Deleted member 4260]

Bruh you gonna watch during the movie?

Click to shrink...

Well it is 3 hours long.

 

[Deleted member 10629]

I don't think he understands the fact that most devs don't actually want to shut down their games, they do it mostly because they have no other choice. It's really not planned obsolescence. People don't make games and plan to shut them down in five years or so, they shut it down because they don't have the money to run it anymore and sometimes don't see the financial point of doing so.

Click to shrink...

Keep watching the video, he talks about that topic.

 

[Bhonar]

Bruh you gonna watch during the movie?

Click to shrink...

he's either trying to be edgy, or maybe he's just arriving at the theater an hour early

 

[capitalCORN]

Let me get down to why GAAS is a problem. The thing is, while it may have been birthed by the MMO boom, it was largely honed in the East. Which largely excluding Japan, gaming means dropping a five to sit in a PC cafe with all-you-can-eat service, it was meant to monetize a non-committal audience. Where the issue transpires in the West is that y'all are married to the AAA paradigm, and popping $60 a title. It would be foolish to think that devs would sever this economy. Now you've got an upfront fee, plus lootboxes and funbucks, the same way the road was paved for paid online.

 

[Bhonar]

That's not what the industry definition of GaaS is. It's a title by title basis when it comes to how devs support the title after the initial launch. Most people try to redefine the term and narrow it down for genuinely no reason. It's not even a remotely confusing concept.

Click to shrink...

if it's a title-by-title basis that changes, then that seems confusing to me lol

 

[fr0st]

Well it is 3 hours long.

Click to shrink...

So you'd just pull out your phone during the movie and start watching a video?

 

[Deleted member 896]

Bruh you gonna watch during the movie?

Click to shrink...

*opens up etcetera tab*

Title: What do I do if someone is distracting my Endgame viewing watching a YouTube video about GaaS?

 

[Deleted member 4260]

So you'd just pull out your phone during the movie and start watching a video?

Click to shrink...

Yeah, why not?

 

[Azoor]

I'm sure that applies more to publishers than developers, though what you've said is true for indie developers. It's not true for, let's say, Sony, who certainly has money to sustain services for longer than they do but choose not to.

Click to shrink...

Even for big publishers, it might be just a game that bleeds money to them and that money that they could pour on other more lucrative projects. I highly doubt EA or Sony o whoever invest in a game where they plan to shut it down after 5 years or so, they would do it forever like what Ross said if it was profitable. This is why I don't see the "planned obsolescence" argument.

 

[Crossing Eden]

if it's a title-by-title basis that changes, then that seems confusing to me lol

Click to shrink...

Titles like AC:Odyssey, Spiderman, or BOTW inherently need different post launch revenue models than something like Overwatch, Rainbow Six, or Fortnite, technically speaking despite some similarities all six of the titles I just name have different methods of post launch revenue.

But at the end of the day, the underlying point is the idea of post launch support which=post launch revenue.

Yeah, why not?

Click to shrink...

bruh

 

[Deleted member 11413]

Even for big publishers, it might be just a game that bleeds money to them and that money that they could pour in other more lucrative projects. I highly doubt EA or Sony and whatever publishers invest in a game where they plan to shut it down after 5 years or so. This is why I don't see the "planned obsolescence" argument.

Click to shrink...

Eh, gonna need to see receipts as to how keeping some servers up bleeds money for Sony. Especially considering they've shut down services for games only a year after launch, which is just way too soon.

 

[test_account]

Why would offering additional content to a game, keeping it interesting for a longer time be considered a fraud? Has anyone here felt that they've been cheated into a game that has additional content delivered after release?

As someone who does software things for a living, I don't actually particularly agree with this premise. A lot of the work I'm doing right now is trying to maintain and add functionality to old tools that have existed for many (many) years. The idea that software should just get launched out into the public as a final build and never be updated or receive support doesn't match up well with the way that it is designed, developed, or distributed. Especially for things where the focus is less of a narrative experience and more, for lack of a better term, sandboxy, the service model is actually a better one to describe it than the idea that it's a product.

Heck, it was arguably like this back in the day, just under a different and more cumbersome guise. The reason you wouldn't think about this in the 90s, for example, is that there were like 10 revisions of Street Fighter II that came out rather than a single version of the game that got regularly modified, expanded, and updated on its own.

Click to shrink...

I agree. Theres room for more things, and games doesnt have to fit one specific mold.

 

[Bhonar]

Titles like AC:Odyssey, Spiderman, or BOTW inherently need different post launch revenue models than something like Overwatch, Rainbow Six, or Fortnite, technically speaking despite some similarities all six of the titles I just name have different methods of post launch revenue.

But at the end of the day, the underlying point is the idea of post launch support which=post launch revenue.

Click to shrink...

yeah I definitely agree there are different models and different methods

but maybe that's why some posters argue about different definitions haha

I guess your definition at the end is simple enough though, "post-launch revenue"

 

[AmbientRuin]

We're spoiled by patches and have forgotten just how dire shit was on consoles before them. Trying your shit out before you bought it was a big thing in the 80s and 90s because half the stuff that came out was a broken piece of shit

Eventually you started seeing patches on cartridges, but that required knowing about it for starters, then finding a copy of it in the stores and purchasing it full price.

Eh, gonna need to see receipts as to how keeping some servers up bleeds money for Sony. Especially considering they've shut down services for games only a year after launch, which is just way too soon.

Click to shrink...

Resources used on a dead game are resources that would be better put to a newer title.
The preferable course of action would be for all companies to be required to release the source code for their servers when they shut them down.

 

[17 Seconds]

people just make the whole thing sound so complicated, like they're constantly being swindled. it's pretty easy to decide what game you want to keep paying for, and it takes about 30 seconds of research to find out if you want it when it comes out. i play a lot of these types of games and i've never had any kind of worries about making bad purchases.

 

[Deleted member 11413]

We're spoiled by patches and have forgotten just how dire shit was on consoles before them. Trying your shit out before you bought it was a big thing in the 80s and 90s because half the stuff that came out was a broken piece of shit

Eventually you started seeing patches on cartridges, but that required knowing about it for starters, then finding a copy of it in the stores and purchasing it full price.

Resources used on a dead game are resources that would be better put to a newer title.
The preferable course of action would be for all companies to be required to release the source code for their servers when they shut them down.

Click to shrink...

I get that, but I'd hardly call a game dead when the publisher is still selling it directly to consumers.

 

[Deleted member 10629]

Why would offering additional content to a game, keeping it interesting for a longer time be considered a fraud? Has anyone here felt that they've been cheated into a game that has additional content delivered after release?



I agree. Theres room for more things, and games doesnt have to fit one specific mold.

Click to shrink...

That's not what he's discussing. He is saying is that if the company running the game decides to close shop, you should be able to access it somehow, since you still own a license to the game.

 

[AmbientRuin]

I get that, but I'd hardly call a game dead when the publisher is still selling it directly to consumers.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, I'll give you that with Sony. They're really shitty and shut things down too early. I'd still be fine with this if they released the source and patched in a method to play on unofficial servers. I still miss Tomorrow Children and think about it every night :(

 

[RPGam3r]

Titles like AC:Odyssey, Spiderman, or BOTW inherently need different post launch revenue models than something like Overwatch, Rainbow Six, or Fortnite, technically speaking despite some similarities all six of the titles I just name have different methods of post launch revenue.

But at the end of the day, the underlying point is the idea of post launch support which=post launch revenue.

bruh

Click to shrink...

I don't think all post launch content is a service though. Software continually getting updates does not make them services. GaaS should in theory line up with SaaS, Iaas, PaaS etc.

 

[Crayon]

Oh I'm going to watch the shit out of this when I get home.

 

[test_account]

Eh, gonna need to see receipts as to how keeping some servers up bleeds money for Sony. Especially considering they've shut down services for games only a year after launch, which is just way too soon.

Click to shrink...

I guess its more of a logistic thing. I agree that its not costing them tons of money, but its not like they plan on shutting down services in a set amount of time. Servers that have been shut down are games that have little to none players.

That's not what he's discussing. He is saying is that if the company running the game decides to close shop, you should be able to access it somehow, since you still own a license to the game.

Click to shrink...

Fair enough, but thats not really limited to games that uses the so called GaaS model though. I'd say that goes for every downloable-only content out there. Some of these games also have physical releases with offline play, like Street Fighter V and Monster Hunter World.

 

[Crossing Eden]

yeah I definitely agree there are different models and different methods

but maybe that's why some posters argue about different definitions haha

I guess your definition at the end is simple enough though, "post-launch revenue"

Click to shrink...

And sometimes it's about keeping the brand/title relevant.

 

[Deleted member 10629]

Fair enough, but thats not really limited to so games that use the so called GaaS model though. I'd say that goes for every downloable-only content out there. Some of these games also have physical releases with offline play, like Street Fighter V and Monster Hunter World.

Click to shrink...

He argues that the Service part in 'GaaS' is just PR speak perpetuated by game companies to justify their attitudes towards software. SFV and MHW can still be played even without Internet connection (at least SFV, not so sure about MHW). But even then, lets say that MHW sold armor pieces and I decide to buy one. I should be able to access it, forever. Even when all services shut down because I own that instance of the art/game code the company created.

 

[Deleted member 48897]

I don't think all post launch content is a service though. Software continually getting updates does not make them services. GaaS should in theory line up with SaaS, Iaas, PaaS etc.

Click to shrink...

Then I feel like what we're railing against is more like what economists call "rent-seeking", which is a sort of economic blight, exists well outside the games industry, and has a common cause (and thus likely a common solution). I'll give you a hint on that last part:

You mean capitalism?

Click to shrink...

Since it's an hour long and I don't have that time right this minute -- for those who have seen it, does the video actually discuss the matter of rent-seeking in any explicit way?

 

[Bhonar]

And sometimes it's about keeping the brand/title relevant.

Click to shrink...

yeah that's true too

 

[Deleted member 50949]

The counter argument section is pretty good. I don't personally know much about GaaS except the numerous problems that comes with a game shutting down.

 

[test_account]

He argues that the Service part in 'GaaS' is just PR speak perpetuated by game companies to justify their attitudes towards software. SFV and MHW can still be played even without Internet connection (at least SFV, not so sure about MHW). But even then, lets say that MHW sold armor pieces and I decide to buy one. I should be able to access it, forever. Even when all services shut down because I own that instance of the art/game code the company created.

Click to shrink...

I see. But i think this goes for all digital-only content and arent limited to "GaaS" models, and i dont see where the fraud comes in. For it to be fraud, there has to be a deliberate plan in motion to trick people. To me, "GaaS" is just a way to describe that a game will continue to get addtional content after its initial release (maybe not just one or two pieces of DLC or so, but more long term support).

I do of course agree that it would be nice to always have access to such content, but its just the nature of such distribution method. If someone closes shop, it cant be guaranteed that people always have access to it because its not offered on any physical media.

Monster Hunter World can also be played offline.

 

[Tarikbrother]

Fortnite, CSGO, DOTA2 and other amazing games are the perfect counter-exemple to this kind of safe and uninventive rethoric. It's always rewarding to shit on GaaS on internet. Even their counter arguments are lack lusters. The bias is clear.

GaaS is fine in itself, plus it's clear people could care less about it. It's all about how it's handled.

 

[Deleted member 10629]

I see. But i think this goes for all digital-only content and arent limited to "GaaS" models, and i dont see where the fraud comes in. For it to be fraud, there has to be a deliberate plan in motion to trick people. To me, "GaaS" is just a way to describe that a game will continue to get addtional content after its initial release (maybe not just one piece of DLC, but more long term support).

I do of course agree that it would be nice to always have access to such content, but its just the nature of such distribution method. If someone closes shop, it cant be guaranteed that people always have access to it because its not offered on any physical media.

Monster Hunter World can also be played offline.

Click to shrink...

Fortnite, CSGO, DOTA2 and other amazing games are the perfect counter-exemple to this kind of safe and uninventive rethoric. It's always rewarding to shit on GaaS on internet. Even their counter arguments are lack lusters. The bias is clear.

GaaS is fine in itself, plus it's clear people could care less about it. It's all about how it's handled.

Click to shrink...

I encourage you to watch the video, he talks about your points.

 

[SirMossyBloke]

I have a stricter definition for game as a service than most, it seems. And I don't understand why so many games are considered Gaas now.

To me, Gaas are games that, due to the way they are designed, can only work as long as a server is running. For example, an MMO, or an exclusively online game that has to constantly communicate with the server to generate missions. It requires people actually manning it to continue running. This is a service.

Games like Horizon, the Witcher 3, etc, that receive continued support through DLCs, are not services. They are goods that you can own forever. Their additional content are additional goods you can purchase. The fact that developpers continue to create more content doesn't suddenly turn a goods into a service.

But what do I know.

Click to shrink...

Basically this. Bringing out DLC or a few updates down the road is not GaaS, or that would fit into almost every game since DLC was a thing.

Gonna watch this video over the weekend.

 

[test_account]

I encourage you to watch the video, he talks about your points.

Click to shrink...

Unfortunately, i dont have time to watch the video right now. But i cant see in any way that this is a deliberate form to trick people into anything. Does he have any specific proof for this? Or is he just speculating in that having a "Gaas" model means that publishers thread the content differently than any other downloadble-only content?

Please correct me if i'm wrong, but going by what you said in the previous posts, it seems that his general point boils down to wanting to have access to the content forever. Which i think is a fair arguement in its own. Its just the part about fraud that i dont see.

EDIT: I added some text.

 

[Deleted member 48991]

It still means Quake, Half Life and Unreal Tournament were Games as a Service as they all used servers as online required a server and someone maintaining it. In fact, it now means any online multiplayer game is one.

Click to shrink...

For those games the company offering the game did not host (most of) the game servers (on PC at least), though they did host a master server for obtaining a list of servers and in some later cases authentication.

 

[Tarikbrother]

I encourage you to watch the video, he talks about your points.

Click to shrink...

I already did. Bad attempt to dismiss an opinion you seem to disagree with.

He talks about those amazing GaaS games exemples, all the while, at the end, not considering they're precisely the reasons why his video wasn't worth the effort. If he wasn't biased, he would have made a video with a less click-baity title and would have been much more nuanced all along his presentation.

How can GaaS be a fraud when the best or most popular games in their genre are GaaS focused ? CSGO, probably the best and most popular shooter ever made. Heartstone revived TCG for the mass and is the most played of them all. Fortnite is a threat to even Netflix and a quality game... It's not just counter exemple or "concerns", those games are perfect exemples why GaaS being a "fraud" or something we should fight against is overblown by some internet activists.

 

[SolicitorPirate]

The whole GaaS argument feels meaningless to me.

I more or less exclusively play GaaS games, and I feel absolutely no need to engage in argument. Winning an internet argument feels meaningless when my 'side' has already won.

The biggest and best games are almost all service games. I can boot up stuff l loved years ago like For Honor, and find new content and an active player base. Service games as a whole do incredibly well, with the industry moving ever more in the direction.

What's the point of engaging when I've already got what I want?