Anti-Fraud Policy for Greenlight?

[76561198240469730]

So, here's the deal:

I've just recently read about this game called "One Life" and was cringing while reading the infos of the main design of it: Absolute perma-death including the loss of the ability to play the game ever again.

Seriously, how is that allowed on Steam? How can developers get Greenlight approval with a design idea that has "ripoff" written all over it? The devs basically advertise with the plan of taking people's money and then leaving the game dead, because that WILL happen.

When I pay for a game, I don't want to be told on how long I can play it. I'm fairly certain that this kind of business model would be illegal even (at least in some countries).

So how comes more and more developers are free to do this stuff (not to mention those who run off once money was paid for an early access game) and get no kind of restrictions? A policy that prevents the developer from preventing the customer from playing the game they have legally obtained through lawful transaction would do the trick and would hinder any kind of developer from ripping people off.

How do you guys see it? Am I the only one seeing the ripoff in this business model?

The problem is, that this game is supposed to be a mmo-survival game. Have any of you guys heard about H1Z1? DayZ/WarZ? Rust? The chance of dying because of random people simply going for the kill is equal to 1. It WILL happen.

How is a business model acceptable in which you pay 10$ for a game that you can't play, because some ♥♥♥♥ killed you 20 seconds into the first startup?

Seriously, what the Frick?!

Anyway, waiting for any other opinion.

[supertrooper225]

They TELL you the intentions of the game on the store page. That isn't fraud....that is call getting exactly what you are paying for. You don't want it? Don't buy it.

[Start_Running]

That's actually an interesting idea. COmplete perma death. It's called innovation OP. it's how new things get done.

Sikzo původně napsal:

So, here's the deal:

I've just recently read about this game called "One Life" and was cringing while reading the infos of the main design of it: Absolute perma-death including the loss of the ability to play the game ever again.

Seriously, how is that allowed on Steam? How can developers get Greenlight approval with a design idea that has "ripoff" written all over it? The devs basically advertise with the plan of taking people's money and then leaving the game dead, because that WILL happen.

It can't be a ripoff if the consumer and potential buyer is made aware of this fact prior to purchase. That you are speaking of it means that the devs are being open and honest. The opposiote of ripping off.

When I pay for a game, I don't want to be told on how long I can play it. I'm fairly certain that this kind of business model would be illegal even (at least in some countries).

Actually no. It's very much legal and above the board. As long as the buyer is clearly informed about it before hand,. WHat is sold needn't have any permanence. I mean You buy flowers from florists and they're wilted and dead in 2 days tops.

So how comes more and more developers are free to do this stuff (not to mention those who run off once money was paid for an early access game) and get no kind of restrictions?

BEcause, again, innovation, It's how a medium grows. Trying new things is how we got from pacman to where we are now. Not everything will work well but even failures create new data and sometime sunexpected data.

A policy that prevents the developer from preventing the customer from playing the game they have legally obtained through lawful transaction would do the trick and would hinder any kind of developer from ripping people off.

Depending on how the terms of the sales contract and product description are stated, there is nothing illegal.. AGain so long as the customer reasonably aware before purchase.. it is perfectly legal.

How do you guys see it? Am I the only one seeing the ripoff in this business model?

Those that understand the phrase 'business model' and the meaning of the word rippoff' would probably not see things yourway I'm afraid,,

The problem is, that this game is supposed to be a mmo-survival game. Have any of you guys heard about H1Z1? DayZ/WarZ? Rust? The chance of dying because of random people simply going for the kill is equal to 1. It WILL happen.

Hmm, so a game that basically mirrors life. That could actually make for someinteresting game play. Such a high risk would mean that much like real life finding someone you can trust and work with would be essential to survival. That could make for a very interesting gaming community. It would also mean a genuine sense of loss when one of your friends dies.

Hmmm.. this game could work out quite well actually.

How is a business model acceptable in which you pay 10$ for a game that you can't play, because some ♥♥♥♥ killed you 20 seconds into the first startup?

If you knew that was a possibilioty before buying.. the question would be come.. why did you buy the game if you did not like that idea? Suffice it to say. Only those who find it intruiging or the concept playing to their tastes will buy it. Niche gaming is a thing. and I can foresee such a niche being oddly profitable

Seriously, what the Frick?!

Anyway, waiting for any other opinion.

Opinion. You need to stop worrying about games you don't like and have no intention of buying and focusing on the games you do like..

[Start_Running]

Or if you want to think of it another way OP. Think of the game like an an Arcade game that requires $10 tokens.

I mean that's how they work. You plunk your tokens in and you get to play until you die and you can't play again until you put in another token.,

[eram]

Why not? We already have The Flock.

http://store.steampowered.com/app/290490/

IMPORTANT!
This multiplayer game comes with a population and an ending to the game, after which the game will never be playable again. Please read the 'population' part in the description part down below or go to our FAQ to get a better understanding.

[Satoru]

You seem to be confused that "Design choices I dont like" means "fraud"

Might want to look up your definitions

Various other games have toyed with the concept

http://www.pocketgamer.co.uk/r/iPhone/One+Single+Life/news.asp?c=29159

http://www.polygon.com/2014/4/15/5618060/upsilon-circuit-robotloveskitty-pax-east-2014

Feel free to point out what part is 'fraud' when they tell you from the outset how it works. This woudl be like complaining about eating a bag of Ranch flavored chips because you hate ranch flavor, despite the fact that the package has RANCH FLAVOR plastered all over it.

[Dendrobates Tinctorius]

OP is going to be so shocked when he hears about some of the other art games out there, like the one where you shoot files from your computer and they actually get deleted.

[fluxtorrent]

Anti-misusing-the-word-fraud Policy is needed for the dscussion forums long before we have to worry about it on the store pages.

[76561198240469730]

The whole "die once and you never play the game again"-thing seems like a poor excuse not to maintain the game for too long.

How do these devs expect to get any stable playerbase at all?


Stuff about legality
And about it being illegal: By german legislation (for example), no contract is above the law. That means, if someone has obtained something through a lawful transaction, such as a purchase (purchased, not rented or leased), it is OWNED by him, if it is not specified in any other way (which is not the case for games bought through Steam). You don't rent a copy of a game you've bought on Steam, you own it.

By revoking access to the game after the purchase was made with the mere excuse "that's how the game works", whether it was stated before the purchase or not, is against these regulations.

To be a legally distributed product, the developers would have to state, that the game is only rented, and not bought. A purchase is the transfer of the ownership.

[fluxtorrent]

Your stuff about legality ignores the fact that games and software are liscenced, not purchased. Don't make assumptions about law unless you are a lawyer and even THEN you need a judge to agree with you before you are "right". Violating a liscence still allows for it's removal in Germany and an agreed upon removal or expiration prior to purchase is also perfectly legal.

[Dendrobates Tinctorius]

Sikzo původně napsal:

The whole "die once and you never play the game again"-thing seems like a poor excuse not to maintain the game for too long.

How do these devs expect to get any stable playerbase at all?


Stuff about legality
And about it being illegal: By german legislation (for example), no contract is above the law. That means, if someone has obtained something through a lawful transaction, such as a purchase (purchased, not rented or leased), it is OWNED by him, if it is not specified in any other way (which is not the case for games bought through Steam). You don't rent a copy of a game you've bought on Steam, you own it.

By revoking access to the game after the purchase was made with the mere excuse "that's how the game works", whether it was stated before the purchase or not, is against these regulations.

To be a legally distributed product, the developers would have to state, that the game is only rented, and not bought. A purchase is the transfer of the ownership.

I'd like to hear more about the countries where contract law is above the law.

Also, how do you buy food? Or have you perfected an imperishable soylent?

[Spawn of Totoro]

Sikzo původně napsal:

The whole "die once and you never play the game again"-thing seems like a poor excuse not to maintain the game for too long.

How do these devs expect to get any stable playerbase at all?


Stuff about legality
And about it being illegal: By german legislation (for example), no contract is above the law. That means, if someone has obtained something through a lawful transaction, such as a purchase (purchased, not rented or leased), it is OWNED by him, if it is not specified in any other way (which is not the case for games bought through Steam). You don't rent a copy of a game you've bought on Steam, you own it.

By revoking access to the game after the purchase was made with the mere excuse "that's how the game works", whether it was stated before the purchase or not, is against these regulations.

To be a legally distributed product, the developers would have to state, that the game is only rented, and not bought. A purchase is the transfer of the ownership.

Incorrect. If you knowingly purchased a game, that you were told up front you would lose access to if your character died, you have nothing to complain about, even in Germany.

There would only be fraud if you were not told this before the purchase. Seeing as the developer is quite upfront with the intentions of the game, there would be no court that would rule against them. They would all say that the user knew what would happen if their character died in the game.

As they are up front about it and you do not like it, then you can choose not to purchase it.

Otherwise it would be like buying cheese then claiming fraud when the cheese molded and spoiled. You knew it would happen if you didn't eat it before then, yet decided to keep waiting.

[Muppet among Puppets]

But what if you lose your game for a single bug or bug user?
Its not as simple in this case to define what was informed about.

[Black Blade]

Sikzo původně napsal:

The whole "die once and you never play the game again"-thing seems like a poor excuse not to maintain the game for too long.

How do these devs expect to get any stable playerbase at all?


Stuff about legality
And about it being illegal: By german legislation (for example), no contract is above the law. That means, if someone has obtained something through a lawful transaction, such as a purchase (purchased, not rented or leased), it is OWNED by him, if it is not specified in any other way (which is not the case for games bought through Steam). You don't rent a copy of a game you've bought on Steam, you own it.

By revoking access to the game after the purchase was made with the mere excuse "that's how the game works", whether it was stated before the purchase or not, is against these regulations.

To be a legally distributed product, the developers would have to state, that the game is only rented, and not bought. A purchase is the transfer of the ownership.

Well thing is any how, they don't block your access to the game but to the play..
You can yet go into the game
Also for a few points what abut a Server based MMO game? is it not legal to sell as in some point the server will go down?

I think you may want to try to understand the rule better

On any case these is likely part of the way that devs are trying to over come the death of multiplayer only games
One of the problems today with multiplayer only games, is that with the speed games come out now days, you have many users that move form one game to the next, leaving Multiplayer only games dead in the dust behind with only a few people keeping to play it...
These way the death of it is known, and adds a new challenge, it may also keep the users around to see the end and not just jump to the next one before it happens
For example, some may wonder what is the ending of the Flock and keep playing to finding giving life for the game to as long as it last (its pretty fun)

[Linerax]

The game details were in front of your damn eyes.

[Tux]

Sikzo původně napsal:

So, here's the deal:

I've just recently read about this game called "One Life" and was cringing while reading the infos of the main design of it: Absolute perma-death including the loss of the ability to play the game ever again.

that in no way whatsoever would come even a little close to being 'fraud'

the idea of fraud is not a bad game, its not about sociopathic game design, its about not blatant lying about features

they aren't liying, they are telling you exactly what will happen. that is not fraud