[The E]

Welcome to two decades of bad decisions on copyright law.

[Grizzly]

If a game is exclusively only available by one seller, and they can strip you of all your consumer rights as the only way to get it, that's a monopoly and a huge problem. Gamers afaik are the only consumers that allow their industry to walk all over them to the extent that the gaming industry does.

It's what always bothered me about the whole "Vote with your wallet!" soundbite. It doesn't change anything, becuase other people always have bigger wallets. It's basically admitting to just being fine with everything the industry does, because the industry just works with market forces and as such every decision was made by someone outvoting you with their wallet.

The only thing that stopped companies from implementing gambling (ie lootboxes) in their games was gambling authorities stomping down on it - this didn't require a change of law, it's simply the authorities realizing that gaming companies were consistently breaking the law ever since Valve implemented the first lootboxes.

[Lorric]

If a game is exclusively only available by one seller, and they can strip you of all your consumer rights as the only way to get it, that's a monopoly and a huge problem. Gamers afaik are the only consumers that allow their industry to walk all over them to the extent that the gaming industry does.

It's what always bothered me about the whole "Vote with your wallet!" soundbite. It doesn't change anything, becuase other people always have bigger wallets. It's basically admitting to just being fine with everything the industry does, because the industry just works with market forces and as such every decision was made by someone outvoting you with their wallet.

The only thing that stopped companies from implementing gambling (ie lootboxes) in their games was gambling authorities stomping down on it - this didn't require a change of law, it's simply the authorities realizing that gaming companies were consistently breaking the law ever since Valve implemented the first lootboxes.

Well if everyone stood up to it, it would change, instantly. If everyone stopped using Epic and / or Steam, they'd have to change fast or go out of business.

With loot boxes and microtransactions, one whale is worth a thousand gamers. But companies will still make more if both gamers and whales are buying in, as there are tons of gamers and few whales.

I can only do my individual part. I never have and never will buy microtransactions and I have exacting standards for DLC which very little DLC meets. I've hardly bought any DLC in my whole life. If a lot more people pushed back, they could move the needle, but it's hopeless under current conditions.

[The E]

Gamers afaik are the only consumers that allow their industry to walk all over them to the extent that the gaming industry does.

This assumes that we were ever given a choice in the matter. We didn't decide to buy always-online, digital-only releases. We didn't ask game developers to change development procedures to take advantage of digital delivery, we didn't beg for lootboxes, we didn't ask for games to be redefined as items you licence rather than buy.
These were decisions game developers and publishers made because they saw a way to increase their sales. These were decisions that they were able to make because they took advantage of some spectacularly bad decisions politicians made when they set the rules for digital marketplaces and digital goods.

To blame "gamers" for this is stupid and wrong. To assume that "gamers" just accepted this is wrong: Most "gamers" do not care, and some will in fact get very angry at you for talking about politics and economics in a gaming context.

Well if everyone stood up to it, it would change, instantly. If everyone stopped using Epic and / or Steam, they'd have to change fast or go out of business.

"Gamer boycotts" are a joke, for good reason. They do not work.
The problem is many-faceted:
* As I said above, most people emphatically do not care. They pay some money to Steam or Epic or Ubi or EA or whatever, they can play a game and have fun. They do not care that what they bought is not a commodity, but a licence; in practical terms, there is no difference between the two.
* These business models are legal, and cannot be made illegal without huge ramifications. While they are legal, companies will use them.
* The only reason to abandon Steam would be a complete collapse of the service itself. I am not much of a game buyer, but my Steam account still represents several thousand euros of games accumulated over more than a decade. I will stop using Steam when Steam stops being usable; without some rather fundamental changes, that's not going to happen.

With loot boxes and microtransactions, one whale is worth a thousand gamers. But companies will still make more if both gamers and whales are buying in, as there are tons of gamers and few whales.

The whole "whales" thing is only a consideration for F2P games, really (that is, games with a low initial buy-in but high reliance on MTX throughout). For more traditional games, there isn't that big a distinction between the two groups; the problem is that game developers and publishers are never satisfied with just making some money, they want to make all money, thus microtransactions.

I can only do my individual part. I never have and never will buy microtransactions and I have exacting standards for DLC which very little DLC meets. I've hardly bought any DLC in my whole life. If a lot more people pushed back, they could move the needle, but it's hopeless under current conditions.

That's fine. Those are all valid decisions, but the point here is that "gamers" can't change the market on their own. They need legislative help to do so.

[Colonol Dekker]

I'm not a football fan but my understanding is that they (football fans) are slaves to buying the latest kit and season ticket price inflation too..

[Lorric]

@ The E

But you do have a choice. And it's the choice I made to say NO.

This is what happens, happened today, when consumers say NO. When companies try to take advantage of being the only game in town and get slapped back into line by their irate consumer base:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54932314

So gamers are the problem, enabling this instead of saying no. Steam has a hold over you now. They have no such hold over me because I didn't allow them to, and instead GOG reaped the reward of the way they do business instead. It's just me, and I don't expect to change the World, but I refuse to accept and enable it.

[The E]

But you do have a choice. And it's the choice I made to say NO.

Yeah, no. I like playing Destiny with my friends. I like playing Ghostrunner. I like playing boardgames online with people. I want to go through Cyberpunk. I want to play Final Fantasy 15. I like doing a couple rounds of PUBG.
These are experiences that I want to have to wind down, to entertain myself, and there is nothing that can replace these specific experiences. If I want to play Cyberpunk 2077, I need to buy a license for it off of CDPR. There is no real legal alternative there: Piracy is not an option for me, and isn't an option in general for multiplayer games.
Similarly, there is no shop that sells digital items as a commodity that is fully equivalent to the way we used to treat SNES games as a commodity for example.

I definitely would like to see this change. But the system doesn't change because I make a decision to only participate in it on limited occasions, it can only change by changing the framework in which the system operates, and that change can only come about through political means.

This is what happens, happened today, when consumers say NO. When companies try to take advantage of being the only game in town and get slapped back into line by their irate consumer base:

Faulty example.

The Premier League tried to radically change their business model for streaming and that led to protests: For games, nothing has changed. 30 years ago, you went to the store, put down some money, and walked away with a game on a cartridge. 20 years ago, you went to the store, put down some money, and walked away with a CD containing a downloader. 10 years ago, you opened Steam, clicked "buy" on a game you wanted, and the download started automatically. These were all based on the same legal framework; you technically never "bought" a game, you always bought a limited license to play that game. The means of delivery have changed, but the basic terms haven't, thus it is hard to convince people that the status quo is bad.

So gamers are the problem, enabling this instead of saying no. Steam has a hold over you now. They have no such hold over me because I didn't allow them to, and instead GOG reaped the reward of the way they do business instead. It's just me, and I don't expect to change the World, but I refuse to accept and enable it.

GOG's EULA is indistinguishable from the Steam and EGS EULAs. Buying games off GOG does not really give you more rights (Yes, I am aware that they have a full 14-day refund policy. Great. Refund policies are not what's wrong with the way we buy games). It does not fundamentally alter the nature of the business transaction you engage in.

[Lorric]

It's a hard choice to make. But do you acknowledge that if enough people made it, it would effect change?

I don't see anything about making you waive rights in the GOG EULA. I'm happy with GOG. I've got 14 days, DRM free, don't need to be online, including for installation, if GOG died, I'd still have the games. I could even keep a copy of the applications for re-installation.

Go to the Epic EULA and search "waive". That's what made me drop Epic. Oh, and I'm not really familiar with modern day Steam. I rejected Steam years ago and have never looked back.

[The E]

It's a hard choice to make. But do you acknowledge that if enough people made it, it would effect change?

Sure. Not enough people ever will.

I don't see anything about making you waive rights in the GOG EULA. I'm happy with GOG. I've got 14 days, DRM free, don't need to be online, including for installation, if GOG died, I'd still have the games. I could even keep a copy of the applications for re-installation.

See, there's one problem there: GOG sells games published by people who are not CDPR. Those games are covered under their own, separate EULAs, which on occasion do involve you waiving rights.
Also, while GOG promises that they will attempt to give you notice and opportunity to download the games you purchased in case GOG closes shop.... they're not guaranteeing that, are they. You're hoping that, when it comes to it, GOG will honor this promise they made, but that really isn't worth anything on its own. It does not constitute a right you have; this is what differentiates a game from, say, a piece of furniture: When I buy a Table, I am free to do with that Table as I please. I can alter it, sell it, gift it, no questions asked. When you buy a game, you obtain a limited, non-transferable license to it; this is true of GOG and every other digital marketplace. You cannot legally resell that license.
What I'm getting at here is that GOG isn't fundamentally better or different to other online game stores. They have some better marketing, sure, and their no-DRM policy is good, but that does not confer you any more rights as a consumer in actuality. If you download a gog installer, you're still committing copyright infringement if you share it with a third party.

Go to the Epic EULA and search "waive". That's what made me drop Epic. Oh, and I'm not really familiar with modern day Steam. I rejected Steam years ago and have never looked back.

Sure, let's do that.

There are 9 occurences of the word waive in that text. Let's discuss them individually.

1: A class-action waiver. Irrelevant to me.*

2: In the "feedback" section, Epic wants you to waive any rights, including the "moral right of the author", arising from you providing "feedback". Feedback, being defined here as " any feedback or suggestions that you provide to Epic regarding the Software, Services or other Epic products and services.", is such a specific thing that I hesitate to call this a major infringement of my rights: I'm not sure what made them put that boilerplate text in there, but if I file a bug report with Epic that also happens to be a bestselling novel, it's kind of my own fault if they profit off of it....

3: In the "Governing Law and Jurisdiction" section
More US-specific legal bs. Don't care.

4: Reiteration of the class action waiver
5, 6, 7: A reference to the above. Doesn't actually count as a new thing by itself.

8, 9: As part of the process defining the english language version of the EULA as the actually binding one (Irrelevant to me)

So, what does that mean to me? Not a whole lot. Waiving the rights to class-action lawsuits is a non-issue to me, and that's (and other jurisdictional issues) what most of the waivers are about. I do not foresee a need for me to sue Epic, either on my own or as part of a class; whether or not those provisions even mean something is under debate and subject to change.


Now that was fun. Let's have some more fun and look at the GOG EULA for comparison's sake.

So remember point 2 in the list above? The part where, if I give GOG feedback about their services, they get to keep it and do with as they please? Same thing here, except worded a bit friendlier and less lawyer-y, but with the same effect.
There is one major difference here: GOG does not demand you waive the right to enter into a class-action lawsuit against them, and doesn't require you to enter into an arbitration process in lieu of suing them.
But.
I would contend that this is not really a right that materially affects me as a customer. The possible scenarios where I would feel the need to sue GOG (or Epic, or Valve) are extraordinarily limited; them making it easier than an american company would doesn't really garner them any points in my book.

So, sure, I would agree that GOG's EULA is friendlier than Epic's. No problem. However, on the points that I do see as problematic for games as a product, there is no difference between any of these shops.

[Lorric]

Indeed. I see nothing to suggest they ever will. It's about me.

I don't mind about being limited to personal use. I think that's fair, with digital media. At least with a physical thing like your table, only one person is ever going to be in possession of the table.

And I don't need to have a warning from GOG to take that action. I didn't even know they'd try to give one.

Now Epic, I'm thinking about the implications of that. They can be as lax and careless as they want. Or even outright malicious, and you have no rights. Lose your details, get hacked, get a virus, whatever. I don't expect to sue them either, but I'm not just leaving myself open to what I don't expect, and then there's just the principle of the thing, it's abhorrent that they should even do that.

[BlueFlames]

Mandatory arbitration clauses are (still) a deal-breaker for me.  I've not used Steam since ~2012, and I don't use the Epic Store because of the content of their EULAs.  I won't buy games from EA or Bethesda (among others) for the same reason.

I limit my purchases from 2K and Nintendo, because they let you opt out of arbitration, but only via snailmail.  (At least I have a form letter for the task now.)

I get that the practice has been normalized, but I still find it intolerable.  Class action lawsuits are one of the few effective measures available to assert your rights as a consumer against capricious corporate actors in the United States.  I don't get how some people can simultaneously critique malicious business practices by video game publishers and then just trust them to never do something necessitating a lawsuit.

But whatever.  I know I'm screaming into the void on this one.

[MP-Ryan]

How many lawsuits or class action lawsuits has anyone here filed?

Literally everywhere BUT the US, mandatory arbitration is beneficial to the consumer.  Lawsuits allow companies with deep pockets to bury an individual consumer.  Arbitration does not.

I realize the notion of being unable to file suit is something that causes angst in the sue-happy legal environment of the United States, but literally everywhere else this is a non-issue.

Also, "waive" isn't a bad thing in all circumstances - waivers are quite normal in contract law, and software is not owned, it is a contractual agreement.  If one if going to armchair lawyer an EULA, one probably should make a bonafide attempt to understand the law as it practically applies to you.  The fact is, software licensing is trash.  The fact also is that it is entrenched in law and NO AMOUNT WHATSOEVER of consumer behaviour is going to change that.  If you don't like EULAs, voting with your wallet is quite literally the least effective means of changing it.  This is a legal construct that exists because of the state of - again, predominantly American - contract law.  You are far better off petitioning your local legislators than refusing to buy on X service because, quite simply, you are a tiny little data point in a a dataset of several hundred million.

[BlueFlames]

Literally everywhere BUT the US, mandatory arbitration is beneficial to the consumer.

Cool.  I live in the United States.  Am I allowed to be cranky about anti-consumer practices now?

[MP-Ryan]

Never said you weren't - just pointing out that the notion of arbitration specifically as some anti-consumer  hammer in contract law really isn't accurate.

[Grizzly]

You are far better off petitioning your local legislators than refusing to buy on X service because, quite simply, you are a tiny little data point in a a dataset of several hundred million.

[mjn.mixael]

Wow, I had a lot to catch up on. Let me clarify what I said earlier.

I simply don't care for the way Epic is buying up mass amounts of store exclusives. I realize this probably is the only way to get a bite out of Steam.. but it just doesn't sit well with me.

I see "platform" exclusive games as a practice left over from a gone era. Exclusives were very much a thing in early gaming because system architecture was so unique. These were highly specific hardware sets designed to do exactly one thing... run a game. As time has gone on, hardware platforms (with a few notable exceptions) have become just specially made computers. The newest Xbox and Playstation use standard computer architecture and general gamers don't care about the system specs, they care what the system can do and what games they can play. The only real reason a game is exclusive is to monopolize it. I think these companies should sell their platforms with features, not monopolies.

Enter PC gaming and we're not really talking hardware platforms. We're talking about a glorified middle man that will take your money and give you a game (and lots and lots of advertisements... the only reason Epic is really doing this is to get more eyeballs on their F2P games.). The notion of "platform exclusives" when the platform is just a storefront, I think is an outdated cheap-shot business practice. (And let's be absolutely clear here, Epic isn't giving more $$ to devs because they want to. They are doing it because they can and it's another really easy shot at Steam. That said, yes. Give more money to the devs.) I think these middlemen should make their stores better so I visit it rather than twisting my arm and forcing me inside.

I also look at the example of Oculus and get rather confused. Facebookulus once tried to completely lock Vive players out of Oculus store exclusive games by blocking Revive (A software that let's non Oculus headsets run games out of the Oculus store.) Everyone lost their **** at the attempted forced exclusivity enough that Zuckerbergulus reversed course. Why does that work here and not with Epic/Steam/GOG?

TLDR: I think Exclusives by any party is a lazy attempt at running a business and that they should all do better.

[Lorric]

TLDR: I think Exclusives by any party is a lazy attempt at running a business and that they should all do better.

Gamers have to make them do better. They're lazy because they can be. Because they sell us **** and call it ice cream and gamers buy it. If there's no line in the sand, they'll keep going forward until we draw one for them.

[mjn.mixael]

I really don't think the situation is quite that dire, but ok.

[Phantom Hoover]

I think these middlemen should make their stores better so I visit it rather than twisting my arm and forcing me inside.

This doesn't work! It's arguably GOG's business strategy and they've nearly gone bust in the past couple of years. The features offered by a game store/launcher are so marginal compared with the game itself that players will just pick the platform they use most often, given the choice; and that's always Steam. Steam's near-monopoly position also means that no competing storefront has anywhere near the same breadth of games available: indeed, a very large segment of game releases are Steam exclusives on PC because it's not worth the publisher's while to put it up on other platforms. This is the key insight behind Epic's whole strategy here, and I think it kind of subconsciously insults the pride of a lot of gamers — you can't compete with Steam by drawing players to your platform directly. You need to draw developers and publishers to your platform instead, and draw the players in after them. I wouldn't call it "anti-consumer" because the cost to the consumer is so trivial, but it certainly doesn't put the consumer at the centre of the universe, and that seems to annoy a lot of people who identify as consumers.

I also look at the example of Oculus and get rather confused. Facebookulus once tried to completely lock Vive players out of Oculus store exclusive games by blocking Revive (A software that let's non Oculus headsets run games out of the Oculus store.) Everyone lost their **** at the attempted forced exclusivity enough that Zuckerbergulus reversed course. Why does that work here and not with Epic/Steam/GOG?

Because Vive and Oculus are expensive pieces of hardware and so it costs a small fortune to own both to keep up with exclusives, whereas it costs effectively nothing to have accounts on multiple game stores.

[The E]

Gamers have to make them do better. They're lazy because they can be. Because they sell us **** and call it ice cream and gamers buy it. If there's no line in the sand, they'll keep going forward until we draw one for them.

There already exists a line. It's where games-as-a-service begin: We only accept subscription models in a rare number of cases, either for big MMOs like WOW or as part of massively discounted services like Xbox Game Pass. Single-game subscriptions are an incredibly hard sell, for good reason, and it's a business model that is almost impossible to get off the ground from scratch these days.

When it comes to the process of purchasing games, it's like PH said: Before you can convince customers that your service is superior to others, you have to prove it to developers and publishers first. GOG, for all the good customer-facing things they do, have no argument to make here that would distinguish them from other marketplaces (in fact, for a certain kind of publisher, lack of built-in DRM and a community that considers the presence of DRM as a negative are strong disadvantages!): Epic got a foot in the door by throwing exclusivity deals (and, with them, money) at every publisher they could find; what sort of things can a hypothetical marketplace that you, Lorric, approve of offer to a publisher to get them to sign on?