The demise of GRID - (was) Video games Europe - Seriously?

I figured I'd just split this off as a subthread right away, because it's
a substantively different conversation than the one about VGE, and it's
highly technical and difficult to say succinctly.

---

So GRID. I brought up GRID in that thread. Why did GRID get pulled in the
way it did? I bought GRID. It is literally not available for download in
my library on Connect. I simply don't have access to the code, and
couldn't run it anyway because of a continuous online requirement. But
why did they have to pull access so entirely? Why so conspicuous?

The answer to the "why" is the plague of all gaming, half-assed CP/DRM.
IOW, the reason there's a "scene" in the first place, and the reason
consumer rights, in combination with grayware EULAs, have been trampled.

So let's look that situation over. Ubi wants to shut down the GRID MP
server. Understandable. Perfectly acceptable. It would be a nice gesture
to open source the server code and let people try to set up their own
servers, but that would be largess on their part, not a requirement. Ubi
is not a generous company. Fine.

Surprise! This is the problem we all talked about where the SP DRM is
tied to a MP server. They're going to shut those servers down. Then you
can't do single player. It's absurd. We all said this, now it has
happened.

But it's worse than that. Ubi has to be draconian to protect their
proprietary DRM. They have to remove access to the code, neutralizing the
enthusiast community*.  Because their DRM is phone home to the server. So
their DRM is *in* the server code, and it's in the client. They can't
release the server source, and they sure as hell can't let anyone get
their hands on the client after the problem has reared its head.

Why? Because they know if they allow people to download the game, the
robust and extremely talented "scene" is going to crack it in a week, and
they're going to reverse engineer the DRM in the client, and that's going
to blow their entire DRM system. Worse yet, it also might reveal some
skeletons about what always-online entailed. Possibly surveillance**.
They've been accused of that (see footnote).

So, they're screwed, because they made bad, anti-consumer decisions, and
now those chickens have come home to roost. We, otoh, were always
screwed. We said so, and we were right. I got GRID for free. I never
would have purchased it. If you did, shame on you.

Here's my opinion on "owning games." You're putting good money down, and
if it's not a subscription based transaction, you should be able to
access the experience, without dedicated support, for as long as you can
make it run. Until your system is no longer compatible. There should be
some tangible asset here, in the name of consumer protection. And they
don't have to open the code if OS code changes to the point that it won't
run. This is acceptable to me.

"But the EULA says you are licensed and you own nothing," you say.

Bollocks.

IANAL, but a EULA is not a proper contract. It hasn't been negotiated as
there's no opportunity to edit clauses, it isn't acceptably signed,
digitally or otherwise, and it's debatable that you are receiving any
"consideration" for clicking through it to get to something you bought in
the first place. A click is not a signature. It is therefore not a
contract.

It's some sort of "Agreement," they define it as a contractual one, but
these Agreements, while upheld for some clauses, have not been tested in
many other clauses.

A contract also can't be signed under duress, which they definitely are
doing when they say you can't access your purchase without clickthrough.
When there were no refunds, this was severe duress. ie: they just stole
your money. They have since wised up about that and added, "If you don't
agree, close this program and return it." Which is a nuisance, but is a
remedy.

So are you legally bound by the EULA? IMHO, hell no. You can sue over
anything. "But," you say, "I've waived my rights and accepted mandatory
arbitration." This is also bollocks.

For example, here's an example of a EULA mandatory arbitration clause
(EA):

By installing or using the Software, you agree to the terms of this License
and agree to be bound by it.  Section 2 below describes the data EA may use
to provide services and support to you in connection with the Software.  If
you do not agree to this use of data, do not install or use the Software.
Section 14, below, provides that any disputes must be resolved by binding
arbitration on an individual basis.  IF YOU INSTALL the Software, the terms
and conditions of this License are fully accepted by you. If you do not
agree to the terms of this License, then do not install or use the Software.

Section 14 says this:

By entering into this Agreement, you and EA expressly waive the right to a
trial by jury or to participate in a class action.

Yeah. You can't waive anything without a proper signature, and such
things are in ALL CAPS for a reason, not buried in Section 14. There's
only one small sentence in ALL CAPS, well buried beneath the waiver
statement in Section 14, if you ever got there or saw it. There is mild
duress, there is obfuscation, there is insufficient emphasis, there is no
initial block confirming emphasis, there is no valid signature, it isn't
even dated.

AFAIC, a "click" is not a signature. In all the clickwrap precedent I
have read, it has never been determined to be a legally valid signature.
You can't claim a plaintiff waived anything *without* a valid signature.
This is all quasi-legal nonsense. You sure as hell can sue. The worst
that will happen is a summary dismissal on the basis of a waiver. You can
always sue, and that waiver can and should be called into question.

In summary:

1. Lousy, half-baked DRM system requires, by its very nature, that no one
access any of the code after [obvious consequence] happens in order to
protect company interests.
2. EULAs claim no tangible asset is being transferred, resulting in
bullshit arguments that they aren't actually selling anything to you.
3. Intimidating language in quasi-legal EULAs that tie you up should you
ever want to file a class-action suit, because they'll claim you "agreed"
to binding arbitration. This is true. You did, but you did not "waive"
your right to seeking remedy in court. They don't have proper
documentation of a waiver, and it isn't established clickwrap precedent.

So, it's just games. Who has the money and time to fight all this? This
has worked for a long time.

Until Phillipe Tremblay said "it’s about feeling comfortable with not
owning your game," basically daring a lawsuit. Come get me! Bring it!
Oops.

https://noyb.eu/en/play-alone-ubisoft-still-watching-you

It's not a suit filed in the entirely too permissive, anti-consumer
United States, but if it's won, you can bet it'll cause a domino effect.
It's cleverly framed as anti-surveillance, but everyone knows what it's
really about. There is some precedent supporting non-ownership.

We should continue to demand the right to own *something* if we pay money
for it. Pay attention to that suit. See if something similar is happening
in your country.

You have a basic consumer right to own something if you paid for it. God
help you if you purchased an NFT, though **. Then you own a crypto
function.

--
Zag

West of House
There is a small mailbox here.

read leaflet

"WELCOME TO USENET!

USENET is a game of adventure, danger,
and low cunning. In it you will
explore some of the most amazing
territory ever seen by mortals. No
computer should be without it!"

``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

* For a note on Ubisoft and "the community" there is a guy who is
literally doing an RTX remix for Dark Messiah of Might and Magic. I think
Ubi even gave him access to the code. So why aren't they as generous now?

**
https://www.gamedeveloper.com/business/new-lawsuit-alleges-ubisoft-shared-user-data-with-meta

*** Did you get that far, Spalls?! I mentioned NFTs!