安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
討論區規矩與守則
2 
檢舉此篇文章
None too sure I and more importantly a(ny) judge would agree with you there.
First off and as also said to Tito Shivan I believe the entire third-party rights thing to be a red herring: back when I bought the software "Alan Wake" I obtained the right to use any as part of said software supplied music (as part of said software, i.e., listening to it in game) and nothing has terminated that right. Admittedly, "said software" would generally be taken to refer to the specific version of it as bought, but forced updates then mean implicit continuation of my rights as to such as long as it is still included, I'd argue.
The issue is with new customers, or put conversely, the third-party rights issue concerns only issues that existed as such already at the time of purchase. Is not an argument for the developer/trader to no more be able to supply me with it should they want to, nor an argument for how it makes for non-compliance when removed.
The mentioned Article 19 moreover makes explicit as its first sentence that it applies to situations,
I.e., that it is not intended for one-time purchases such as my purchase of Alan Wake back when (in theory) was.
Now of course, these forced updates treating my "one-time purchase" as precisely not that could certainly be argued to have it applicable none the less but then we're in any case still confronted with 19-2 that says, emphasis mine,
That is the reason why I above argued that the case of GTA4's Glukoza's Schweine was one of the best opportunities to argue that it was part of the game as such, i.e., to have its removal not be only minor. But I do in fact feel it mostly given that a judge would consider it minor -- and that then goes a few times over for Space Oddity in Alan Wake which if I'm not mistaken played only over the ending credits.
Finally, and by the way...
Point (75) of the preamble to the 2019/770 containing the above Article 19 says something interesting. Again emphasis mine,
Just now checked that starting Alan Wake after the update that removed Space Oddity did not e.g. even present me with a EULA so although I'd argue that a new build on Steam constitutes a new version in the context, a new contract is here definitely not concluded.
But generally when e.g. a EULA would be presented (as it often is) that would still be to say that this all ties in fully-completely as to what's needed for a contract to be concluded in the first place. Under EU-law not just presenting a EULA generally but the above makes it sound at least potentially different for updates.
Don't confuse purchase with supply.
E.g. if you purchased Alan Wake (2012) on Steam, it remains in continuous supply to this date. Steam allows you to install the most recent version of the title as long as it is 'in your library' - i.e. your account has a grant of access to it.
Article 19 only does not apply to situations where you pay once and download once, after which said download is the only means by which you can install and regain access to the content. Basically the pure-digital equivalent of a physical install medium, where it's your own responsibility to keep a back up of the install data.
Logically, article 19 can't apply in that case, because there's no way for a trader or publisher to modify an offline installer you've downloaded beforehand. (Provided that it's actually fully 100% offline, that is.)
Revisions of EULAs aren't new contracts.
They are unilateral changes applied to an existing contract. Which comes with its own legal ifs-and-buts and generally is largely limited by the 1993/13 directive. Or rather: should be, were it competently enforced ...
You're going to find this a lot:
The problem isn't the leglislation. The legislation is there and is 100% capable.
The problem is the enforcement.
The enforcement is lax. In no small part, because counter to some other legislation passed down from the EU, the EU counts on the consumer rights legislation to be enforced by individual member states and many member states simply don't give a toss and chronically under-fund their appointed authorities meant to enforce the legislation. They're treated as a write-off and a cost-sink that only wastes public money which could go to more important thing like education, healthcare, or welfare. And in cases where corruption thrives unchecked, some government officials would rather have disappear into private pockets.
Provides. The contract I entered into when I bought Alan Wake does not provide any such thing; as a contract it is a one-time contract, with any updates possible to be argued even as mere bonus service from the supplier. As said, forced updates maybe not so much, but I do not believe that's as clear-cut as you there sketch it to be.
And in any case -- the more important part is of course that even if deemed applicable as such, the "not minor" clause I would (very much) believe to not be to e.g. here that Alan Wake / Space Oddity case, meaning this Directive is specifically here not relevant.
Will leave it at that though. I do not enjoy reading legalese :)
( If you've bought it on Steam, it actually does. Because then the contract would provide that you are granted access to the Content, as per the Steam SSA's defined term, you purchased through your account, for as long as you hold your account with Steam... )
I can understand that though.
At this point, there are several people in this thread maliciously "misunderstanding" what I am posting.
If the rights holders say that the game has to stop, the game has to stop. If those rights holders happen to own a song or a real world object that is licensed to appear in the game for some finite amount of time, those things might be possible to remove from the game in order to preserve the game. In cases where that thing is integral to the game's existence, like the rights to use a franchise or every "character" in a game like The Crew, removing the no-longer-legal-to-distribute content would essentially be removing the whole game.
Ubisoft isn't going to run servers for a racing game where you can no longer race anything. They're also not going to provide a free content update to a few dozen players of a decade-old MMO that replaces every car in the game with some new custom model. And if I know one thing about MMOs, it's that doing that would have caused even more anger than shutting down the game entirely did. People don't like it when there are even small cosmetic changes made to their MMO gear.
In my specific case, AKA the case you replied to with the words above, all three of the games I mentioned are only allowed to exist and be distributed due to another company's good graces. We're small teams of modders (and in one of the three cases, it's just me working on it and nobody else). I run a lot of the infrastructure out of my parents' basement. That's not a joke. We don't have the funding to retain a lawyer, let alone hire multiple psychologists to "exploit" players.
I am telling you that in order to "preserve" a game that cannot legally be distributed, a game developer would have to break the law. You are telling me to find a creative way around the law. That is a crime known as "fraud". Laws aren't interpreted by unthinking computers. The judge would know exactly what I tried to do if that was the case. So no, I will not be breaking the law, even though you are "confident" that I can.
Once (but only once) more: said entire eventual point of the iniative as well as the situation the person you replied to references is one where games are designed from the start to not HAVE any such issues even potentially. Yes, that needs a change to current industry practices. Good; that is the point.
You do the same thing every single time: drum up something far-fetched to claim to be offended about ("You are telling me to find a creative way around the law.") and then declare moral victory. Please note that you're not in fact convincing anyone.
So in other words basically killing the gaming industry. Spoken from someone who truly has no clue how licensing works or how integral it is to The game development process.
Heaven forbid people don't jump the "trending" bandwagons.
What is this guy even saying?
What they're asking for (which is completely different from what the campaign is asking for) is to essentially ban limited licensing of any kind in video games. That in order for a game to be distributed in Europe, they want all the rights to belong to the developers of the game directly and permanently.
In other words, licensing would only be okay if there no conditions or duration associated with the license. A musician would need to give the game developers a perpetual license to use a song. (I believe that is the case for, for example, the song "Into the Void" by Nine Inch Nails in Warframe, which they've also gone to extended lengths to make sure is safe to stream in its context within the game, so it's not impossible)
Or a license to depict a car would need to be indefinite. Again, probably possible to do, but probably also more expensive than what is currently being done, so you'd see fewer games using that specific kind of licensed content. Apart from games like The Crew where the licensed content (recognizable car brands) is the main draw of the game for some people, it probably wouldn't stop most AAA games from being developed or released, it just might change some of the artistic decisions they make during development.
But here's why that's not what this campaign is about and that's not the solution being proposed by the campaign:
Duration isn't the thing making the licensing fundamental to all three of the games I work on "limited". And the same is true for any mod, fan game, or even game based on a book series (for example, The Witcher). And even with what the real European Citizen's Initiative says its goal is (requiring a game to remain playable after the developer can no longer run the servers for it), only one of the three (DFHack) would be able to do that, and that's the one game that isn't multiplayer by design.
Alien Swarm: Reactive Drop is designed to lean heavily on the Steamworks APIs and Spy Cards Online is designed to do as much with browser cache and peer to peer (WebRTC) communication as possible, so it's unlikely that either would need to be stopped for financial reasons related to server hosting, but if Valve or Moonsprout Games ever said "stop hosting and distributing that game", we'd have to stop.
Valve isn't going to give away permanent, irrevocable rights to one of their franchises to a team of modders. Moonsprout Games isn't going to give away permanent, irrevocable rights to their only franchise to me. Bay12Games only lets DFHack exist because they want to, not because they have to. When the licensing is fundamental to the game, the options are to do what the rights holder says to do with the licensed content (which in all three cases is essentially the entire game I work on) or to be breaking the law. There's no third option. If you try to find one, that's called fraud.