As far as 'hot button' issues go, I'd like to think that this one takes some sort of precedent in the world of gaming at least. (There may be a slightly more pertinent 'hot button' on the world stage, but I wouldn't know. I don't go outside.) Although this is the sort of issue that, once raised, is quite likely to have people give you that look, you know the one; the look that quietly says, "You're being a paranoid weirdo again!" (Hmm? Only I get that look regularly? Oh...) But my patriotic British pessimism does taint my every thought so I cannot help but take a critical look at the direction the industry is heading when it comes to the ownership of software, specifically the ownership of games. (Although there's also a bit more to it than just that.)
If you've never looked into this before, you'll likely think that buying a game is similar to buying a movie. You access the shop, buy a copy of the movie and thus are free to indulge in perpetuity. And in truth that is exactly how it is, although I fear you may be slightly ignorant of the specifics of such a transaction. You see, when you purchase a movie you are actually acquiring a licence to watch that movie and signing a contract to do so. This contract comes equipped with a bevy of specific instructions that are meaningless to the everyday consumer but protect the distributor should someone decide to go burning and reselling their copy of this film; as that action would essentially be a breach of contract. With the world of gaming things are very much the same with a slight extra stipulation that video games are becoming increasingly online, to the point where some companies reserve the right to withdraw service of their title to you whenever them damn well feel like it. Of course, this is an idle clause which has never been significantly enacted, but it's existence is enough to set folk like me worrying.
Now in an ideal world someone would buy a game and have access to it until death, and that does seem like the model that a lot of companies wish to follow, but there are a few who like to test that relationship just a little. Most notably is, surprise surprise, EA who have at least once in their history used their position of superiority to withdraw their entire library of games from an individual. Now of course there was some special factors involved in this situation; namely the fact that EA own their own storefront and launcher through which their games are distributed, but this could theoretically be invoked by any company out there. Now I can't recall exactly what this specific user did to receive such a harsh punishment from EA but that doesn't even really matter, the point is that goods and services that have been paid for can be in risk of getting revoked at the sole discretion of the distributor at any time. And this is something that we should all be aware of, heck for some games we have to sign a contract which stipulates as such for the privilege to access that game in the first place.
Another situation in which software ownership laws are often invoked by games companies is in any situation involving mods. Now mods, as you likely know, are modifications to the base of any game that can do anything from adding new content, blocking old content, fixing bugs, or remodelling existing assets. Sometimes, such as with Bethesda games, this practice is almost entirely encouraged by the developer as they enjoy the creativity that goes into it and realise that it helps to bolster the community. Other times, however, the developers can be less than receptive such as was the case with Rockstar and their GTA games. You might not remember this, but in the early days of GTA V on the PC, Rockstar became notorious for hunting down mods for their game even on single player specific modes. They exploited their user agreement to bully and threaten mod developers and even today it's difficult to figure out why. It's not as though Rockstar had any plans for single player GTA, so the whole scenario is as confusing in hindsight as it was in the moment. But it was these iffy software ownership laws that paved the way for them to do that.
All of this has come to mind for me again in the wake of the rise of game streaming. Google Stadia specifically. That tech comes with the premise of running all of the game files in the background and streaming the results directly to one's device allowing for them to play games far beyond such systems' capabilities. Unfortunately this means that people who take part have none of the game files on their systems which means if something were to happen to the people who run the service like, for example, them shutting down a year into business because nobody's playing it, then players will be left potless. As far as the conversation goes regarding 'software ownership' I think that Stadia is one of the extremes that we should all be paying attention to. When we entrust a third party for literally all of the relevant files then we have given up the majority of control over what we play to an unknown party and that's just a perfect recipe for disaster.
To a much lesser, but still pertinent degree, I feel like this conversation touches on the way we should look at modding in the future too. That GTA example highlights a certain over-cautionary tone that a lot of developers take towards this concept, but what about those who straight up attempt to corral their audiences for financial gain? Such was the situation with Blizzard's 'Warcraft 3: Reforged' wherein their updated user agreement meant that any content developed through their custom tools was solely owned by Blizzard and not the creator. Those who made custom games were not due recompense for having their work appropriated, should Blizzard see fit, or even a mention of their work to inspire any of Blizzard's ideas. (As is indicated by the 'waiving of moral rights') Now, this is a rather transparent way to prevent a similar situation as to what happened with the original 'Warcraft 3' wherein that game's custom tools were used to create a popular custom game mode known as 'Defence of the Ancients' which then evolved into a standalone game called 'Defence of the Ancients 2'. (Otherwise known as the smash hit genre-creator; DOTA 2.) Say what you will about "protecting intellectual property" but that makes for a sobering example when it comes to how little the consumer actually owns their games and the things they do in said games.
And if you think that you may be safe from this just because you play on a console, or buy all your games from Steam, think again. Every single disc game nowadays has a customary install period that requires at least some the content to be installed online, meaning that somewhere along the way you need the permission of the publisher in order to install a game. Steam games will, whenever possible, run games directly through their client, meaning that you'll require their permission at some point in order to play your games. (Unless you plan to play everything offline forever.) Now, I know all of this reads like the delusions of an incredibly paranoid gentleman, (To which I thank you. No one ever calls me a 'gentleman.') but I feel disquiet in the knowledge that all it takes is for one link in that chain to be broken for us to be denied access to the software that we paid for, and I worry that in the future this divide between what we think we own and what we actually do is only going to expand.
When you look at the modern film watching audience you'll note that the vast majority of it is taken up by folk who exclusively watch Netflix or some other streaming service. What they can watch is, as such, decided by the whim of whatever movies or shows that these services can get ahold of. Should gaming move into a similar situation, as services like Stadia seem adamant that we do, why wouldn't the exact same content accessibility scenario play out? Now I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in a gaming ecosystem where what I can play is limited by whatever the populace seems most interested in, encouraging their service provider to secure the appropriate rights, cause I like a whole bunch of weird crap that no one else is probably playing. Right now I'm playing a long game of 'Stellaris', whilst cutting that up with bouts of 'Divinity Dragon Commander', and 'Star Wars Empire at War', with odd sessions of the 2015 remaster of the 2002 'Resident Evil remake', and back-and-forths between 'Oddworld: New 'N' Tasty' and 'Oddworld: Abe's Odyssey'. My taste is weird and eclectic and I love it for being so, and thus I lament for the day where my taste becomes forcibly limited due to software ownership conundrums.
No comments:
Post a Comment