tl;dr: we will do nothing about it
Full response below
The Government recognises recent concerns raised by video games users regarding the long-term operability of purchased products.
Consumers should be aware that there is no requirement in UK law compelling software companies and providers to support older versions of their operating systems, software or connected products. There may be occasions where companies make commercial decisions based on the high running costs of maintaining older servers for video games that have declining user bases. However, video games sellers must comply with existing consumer law, including the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs).
The CPRs require information to consumers to be clear and correct, and prohibit commercial practices which through false information or misleading omissions cause the average consumer to make a different choice, for example, to purchase goods or services they would not otherwise have purchased. The regulations prohibit commercial practices which omit or hide information which the average consumer needs to make an informed choice, and prohibits traders from providing material information in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner. If consumers are led to believe that a game will remain playable indefinitely for certain systems, despite the end of physical support, the CPRs may require that the game remains technically feasible (for example, available offline) to play under those circumstances.
The CPRs are enforced by Trading Standards and the Competition and Markets Authority. If consumers believe that there has been a breach of these regulations, they should report the matter in the first instance to the Citizens Advice consumer helpline on 0808 223 1133 (www.citizensadvice.org.uk). People living in Scotland should contact Advice Direct Scotland on 0808 164 6000 (www.consumeradvice.scot). Both helplines offer a free service advising consumers on their rights and how best to take their case forward. The helplines will refer complaints to Trading Standards services where appropriate. Consumers can also pursue private redress through the courts where a trader has provided misleading information on a product.
The CRA gives consumers important rights when they make a contract with a trader for the supply of digital content. This includes requiring digital content to be of satisfactory quality, fit for a particular purpose and as described by the seller. It can be difficult and expensive for businesses to maintain dedicated support for old software, particularly if it needs to interact with modern hardware, apps and websites, but if software is being offered for sale that is not supported by the provider, then this should be made clear.
If the digital content does not meet these quality rights, the consumer has the right to a repair or replacement of the digital content. If a repair or replacement is not possible, or does not fix the problem, then the consumer will be entitled to some money back or a price reduction which can be up to 100% of the cost of the digital content. These rights apply to intangible digital content like computer software or a PC game, as well as digital content in a tangible form like a physical copy of a video game. The CRA has a time limit of up to six years after a breach of contract during which a consumer can take legal action.
The standards outlined above apply to digital content where there is a contractual right of the trader or a third party to modify or update the digital content. In practice, this means that a trader or third party can upgrade, fix, enhance and improve the features of digital content so long as it continues to match any description given by the trader and continues to conform with any pre-contract information including main characteristics, functionality and compatibility provided by the trader, unless varied by express agreement.
Consumers should also be aware that while there is a statutory right for goods (including intangible digital content) to be of a satisfactory quality, that will only be breached if they are not of the standard which a reasonable person would consider to be satisfactory, taking into account circumstances including the price and any description given. For example, a manufacturer’s support for a mobile phone is likely to be withdrawn as they launch new models. It will remain usable but without, for example, security updates, and over time some app developers may decide to withdraw support.
Department Culture, Media & Sport
You must log in or register to comment.
I have an idea: if a game needs internet connection and the servers are shut down the developer has too release all the info on the protocol of the server. That way an open source version of the server can be created and the games can work again.
Yeah because in some ways it’s unrealistic. But we need a decision on what the “expected lifetime” of a video game is , I suppose. Much like how for rental flats there exists standards how long a kitchen, a bathroom, etc, last on average until they need refurbishment.
So if it comes down to say 10 years, then you cannot shut down your online services before those 10 years are up. As video games can be expected to last that long. Although I wonder whether this means they could shut it down after 5y if they refund everyone 50% of their sales price.
If that 50% refund is infaltion adjusted, I’m totally fine.
And must be announced like advertising to reach maximum players, not some blog post or press release that no one reads.
better: they have to release the server software outright.
they are selling the game, and permission to use that server software they require to function at all. it should be included in a game, outright.
expanding this for devices? even better.
I mean Accursedfarms of YouTube fame iis trying to get something passed in Australia which might have some effects down the line. Who knows…
Just keep going. If it’s debated in parliament, it might even end up on the news.
As if this comes as a surprise in any capacity. Governments are the biggest criminals out so why wouldn’t they back up other thieves so long as they’re also worth millions already.
That said, this reads as though they truly think the protections that are already in place are good enough. It’s the standard governing body problem of being at least a decade behind, they still live in a world where things can’t just be unplugged by someone not inside your house.
These petitions do nothing.
Then what do you suggest?
Stop buying games from studios that pull this kind of shit. I get that some industries are run by monopolies and need government regulations since nobody can choose to support the better companies (because there are none), but gaming isn’t one of them. There are hundreds of independent studios that make games as a passion. Stop buying $90 Aways Online, Loot box, Battle Pass, Day 1 DLC, popular IP games with $50 million dollar budgets funded by investors. If people stopped buying these they’d stop being made.
I don’t disagree but aside for The Crew (at a time before Ubi crafted a reputation as a bunch of scumlords) I haven’t bought one yet the market is still littered with them. I used to be one of those people who would preach from the gospel of Jim Fucking Sterling Son and just like the original, I’ve only watched things get predictably worse.
Unfortunately this as a suggestion doesn’t fix the problem of games that are being stolen now, only the ones you don’t buy in the future, assuming things don’t get even worse. It’ll only get worse before it gets better. Voting with your wallet is a fix for the future and only if people aren’t short-sighted morons (something you should absolutely never bank on) but we need a fix for the past.
deleted by creator
It read to me that they do think that but also that it needs policing better and companies need to be more up front when selling the game to stay compliant and that ones that do not, need investigating
If you buy a copy of a game, that copy should be your in perpetuity. Beyond that. there’s no need for regulation.
I think the regulation would kick in to force publishers to enable users to set up servers of they shutter the official ones
Why? You aren’t buying the servers. You can simply not buy games that don’t have third-party servers.
So, like every multiplayer game released in the last decade?
Why have a policy at all around abandoning games? Only buy games that are DRM free.
Hell, why regulate anything? Let the free market decide, just don’t buy it, bro.
That’s all we need for games.
Gamers don’t need to be protected from bad games because gamers don’t need good games. Anything that’s a real good or service should obviously be more regulated.
This basically boils down to “read the terms & conditions”, which isn’t unreasonable.
If a game states in its terms that access may be revoked at any time and you buy the game, then you have no reason to be surprised when access is eventually revoked.
Obviously when terms aren’t clear enough or intentionally obfuscated, that’s indeed an issue for legislation to act upon.
Exactly, because as we all know - all consumers are all experts in all the products that they use and so deserve no protection from scheming producers.
Get out of here
I didn’t say they deserve no protection at all. You are twisting my words because my opinion doesn’t align with yours.
I advocate for games having a clear indicator for any online dependencies. I do not advocate for outlawing said dependencies or mandating “offline patches”.
If you are clearly told that you’re buying an ephemeral product and you are still surprised when it shuts down, then I don’t know what to tell you.
I’m not in the UK, but it’s incredibly hard for me to make an informed purchase as someone who cares about this stuff. My latest strategy is to use the PC Gaming Wiki, because I can’t even rely on store pages on GOG or Steam to paint a full or accurate picture of what I’m buying. Often times I need to hope the developer responds to particular Steam forum posts.
With GOG, you can at least have full confidence that the game will continue to work without any outside connections.
But not that the multiplayer will. It’s often times impossible to discern from what’s on the store page.
sorry, I did take a low approach there by lumping you with the “let the market sort it out” folks. Apologies.
Still, “clearly told” could mean anything from a cigarette style warning to a single overlooked “parental advisory” style sticker
Yeah it’d be tricky. I would rather see a law that requires companies to keep their games accessible for X years minimum from release, which also affects online services.
Then at least it’s a universal single standard.
Consumers do have protection currently, just a very publisher biased protection in terms of games.
There’s one issuse: Not everybody has the capacity to interpret the lengthy legal document. While being reasonable, when was your last time sit down and have a good read of the EULA and other related documents? These documents are designed to be difficult to read, and often intertwined with legal concepts that most don’t understand. That’s why lawyers exist.
Then the next question is: should a product a consumer bought (not lease) be completely dysfunctional after a undefined period of time? Is the petition asking for the servers operate indefinitely regardless of revenue? No. The petition is asking to not make the game completely unusable after a server shut down because of an always online DRM or something alike. The online part can go away and we can all enjoy the offline campaign like 10 years down the road. I don’t think this is a request unreasonable to make.
Your interpretation of such action’s legality is valid, but legal is just the minimum bar of ethical, and seems like there is a need to raise the bar.
not everybody = nobody
id wager the average user could not read the terms they’ve agreed to in a human lifespan
For digital copies, they could bury this into the EULA and make it a requirement that you agree to it before you make your purchase (IIRC some storefronts do this already).
However for physical copies I suppose there could be a case made if the duration of support was not disclosed at the time of purchase (or it was not printed somewhere on the outside of the packaging).
