EA disabling games that were paid for

[Jack21222]

It turns out that when you pay for a mobile app, you're not actually buying the game. You're just paying for the company to allow you to play the game as long as the company sees fit.

http://www.rockbandaide.com/16083/rock-band-ios-app-no-longer-playable-after-may-31/

The mobile version of the game Rock Band is being disabled on users devices on May 31st. The weird thing is it's still being sold in the app store. As far as I can tell, it's not just that the game will no longer be supported, but it will be completely disabled.

Can you imagine if other purchases worked this way? Imagine if Chevy put a boot on your car and removed the engine because they no longer were selling that model. Or imagine if a musician got into a dispute with his record label, so the label came to your house and took away the CD you purchased.

It's a wonder how this is legal.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Sounds like Amazon's ebook policy, owing to the DRM they have the right to delete items off of people's devices that have been legally bought (though thankfully DRM seems to be on the out now that the big six have realized that all it did was give Amazon a potential monopoly).

 

[genericusrnme]

And they wonder why people prefer pirated products :uhh:

 

[CallMeShady]

That is why people download pirated stuff in the first place. =/

 

[lisab]

You mean you didn't actually read the User Agreement?

:tongue2:

 

[Jack21222]

You mean you didn't actually read the User Agreement?

:tongue2:

Sometimes, those User Agreements are only available to be read after you purchase and install the game. I don't know that this was the case here, but many games don't have the agreement available pre-purchase.

 

[russ_watters]

It turns out that when you pay for a mobile app, you're not actually buying the game. You're just paying for the company to allow you to play the game as long as the company sees fit.

http://www.rockbandaide.com/16083/rock-band-ios-app-no-longer-playable-after-may-31/

The mobile version of the game Rock Band is being disabled on users devices on May 31st. The weird thing is it's still being sold in the app store. As far as I can tell, it's not just that the game will no longer be supported, but it will be completely disabled.

Can you imagine if other purchases worked this way? Imagine if Chevy put a boot on your car and removed the engine because they no longer were selling that model. Or imagine if a musician got into a dispute with his record label, so the label came to your house and took away the CD you purchased.

It's a wonder how this is legal.

I think you are probably misinterpreting this in that it is probably more of an online game than you realize. On the site you posted, the users are speculating about the licensing of the music running out, which only really matters if the license stays with them and isn't transferred to you. That makes the license cheaper, but means it isn't permanent. More directly, if the music itself isn't stored on your device and you need to download it every time you play, it takes more than just "support" from the parent company for the app to function. They have to be a permanent content provided for it. Tons of applications work that way, especially including gps mapping apps, MLB baseball, online games in Facebook and multi-user online games like WoW (though I'm not sure if WoW still has a single player option...).

Still, this relates to why I'm not sold on cloud computing yet. I want local control of my content - I don't want to have to rely on being able to access a Google (or Turbo-Tax) server in order to view my own files.

 

[encorp]

Other purchases do..

ever see what happens to an owners Ferrari when they don't drive it?

They can take the thing back if they see fit.

 

[Jack21222]

Other purchases do..

ever see what happens to an owners Ferrari when they don't drive it?

They can take the thing back if they see fit.

Ferrari takes their car back? I hardly think so.

 

[Office_Shredder]

According to people posting comments to the original story

Only now is it occurring to me that the licensing was set up in that the songs were only available for a specific time. Ugh.

Searching a bit to see the mechanics of this I found
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-05-02-rock-band-ios-no-longer-playable-after-31st-may

EA could, theoretically, deploy a game update to stop the game working, but players would have to manually accept or decline the update.

 

[BobG]

This from EA Games:

http://www.slashgear.com/ea-recants-on-rock-band-03225825/

“Rock Band for iOS will remain live – the in-app message users received yesterday was sent in error. We apologize for the confusion this caused. We’re working to clarify the issue that caused the error and will share additional information as soon as possible.” – EA Games

EA hasn't quite got the hang of how the gaming environment has changed:
Game Giant Forced To Play Catch Up

 

[Jack21222]

This from EA Games:

http://www.slashgear.com/ea-recants-on-rock-band-03225825/


EA hasn't quite got the hang of how the gaming environment has changed:
Game Giant Forced To Play Catch Up

I don't buy their excuse that it was an error for a second. They saw the outrage generated by their move, and decided to backtrack. You do not accidentally send a message giving exactly a 1 month warning of a pending shutdown.

 

[QuarkCharmer]

Interestingly enough. EA actually posted confirmation that they were suspending support for that game on their official channels. Then redacted that information. You can see it by checking out this page:

https://help.ea.com/article/will-rock-band-no-longer-be-available-on-mobile-devices

Then google "ea faq update rock band" and check the display message of "Yes, we will be suspending support of ROCK BAND after May 31 ...", since for some reason, google is not offering a cache of this. The above link is updated on May 2 though. Pretty lame EA.

 

[Jack21222]

Interestingly enough. EA actually posted confirmation that they were suspending support for that game on their official channels. Then redacted that information. You can see it by checking out this page:

https://help.ea.com/article/will-rock-band-no-longer-be-available-on-mobile-devices

Then google "ea faq update rock band" and check the display message of "Yes, we will be suspending support of ROCK BAND after May 31 ...", since for some reason, google is not offering a cache of this. The above link is updated on May 2 though. Pretty lame EA.

Suspending support is one thing. Remotely disabling the game would be something completely different.

This is actually going to be an issue in the future of gaming. I occasionally go back and play old video games (~10 years old) for the sake of nostalgia. They still work, because I still have the disks. However, with some new games (I'm looking at you, Diablo 3), the game requires you to play through the company's servers. There is no offline mode at all, and more than just a constant internet check as DRM, they're actually keeping some key calculations on the server. So, if they ever decide to shut down their servers, it renders the game unplayable.

Internet connectivity checks can be hacked away, but in order to play a game like Diablo 3 offline, you'd have to get your own game server.

This is a disturbing trend to me.

 

[gravenewworld]

Oh they're just getting warmed up. The next gen systems for playstation and X box will link games to an online account, that way you won't be able to buy and play used video games without having to pay a fee to reactivate a used video game. So much for the days of trading video games with your friend when you were a kid.

 

[Charmar]

Suspending support is one thing. Remotely disabling the game would be something completely different.

This is actually going to be an issue in the future of gaming. I occasionally go back and play old video games (~10 years old) for the sake of nostalgia. They still work, because I still have the disks. However, with some new games (I'm looking at you, Diablo 3), the game requires you to play through the company's servers. There is no offline mode at all, and more than just a constant internet check as DRM, they're actually keeping some key calculations on the server. So, if they ever decide to shut down their servers, it renders the game unplayable.

Internet connectivity checks can be hacked away, but in order to play a game like Diablo 3 offline, you'd have to get your own game server.

This is a disturbing trend to me.

I can't agree more, but I don't see much chance of it changing, I buy less than one game a year now, but I don't think they noticed.

 

[Office_Shredder]

This is actually going to be an issue in the future of gaming. I occasionally go back and play old video games (~10 years old) for the sake of nostalgia. They still work, because I still have the disks. However, with some new games (I'm looking at you, Diablo 3), the game requires you to play through the company's servers. There is no offline mode at all, and more than just a constant internet check as DRM, they're actually keeping some key calculations on the server. So, if they ever decide to shut down their servers, it renders the game unplayable.

Just to clarify, games requiring an online server have existed at least since 1999 (Everquest). The fact that these types of games are more popular now is not an indictment on the industry, it's just the kind of game that people want to play

 

[Charmar]

I remember EQ, in fact I still play it, mmorpgs don't bother me.

Needing a net connection to play Starcraft II vs my friends or single player is the sort of thing that I don't care for.

 

[QuarkCharmer]

Oh they're just getting warmed up. The next gen systems for playstation and X box will link games to an online account, that way you won't be able to buy and play used video games without having to pay a fee to reactivate a used video game. So much for the days of trading video games with your friend when you were a kid.

PS Vita already does this. If you buy a used game, it costs you like 10 bucks to get "online access" to play it online. DRM honestly makes me want to pirate stuff that has the DRM removed, since I can't buy it that way. That's saying a lot, since I don't ever download things.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

I remember EQ, in fact I still play it, mmorpgs don't bother me.

Needing a net connection to play Starcraft II vs my friends or single player is the sort of thing that I don't care for.

no LAN for SCII is perhaps the single most idiotic video game decision ever made

 

[Jack21222]

Just to clarify, games requiring an online server have existed at least since 1999 (Everquest). The fact that these types of games are more popular now is not an indictment on the industry, it's just the kind of game that people want to play

You completely missed the point of what I said.

Diablo 3 is a single player game. Everquest has no single player mode. It IS an indictment of the industry.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

PS Vita already does this. If you buy a used game, it costs you like 10 bucks to get "online access" to play it online. DRM honestly makes me want to pirate stuff that has the DRM removed, since I can't buy it that way. That's saying a lot, since I don't ever download things.

It is something that a few game developers have been talking about. They have gone from complaining about pirates to complaining about used game purchases since used game stores have become much more popular. There are those intending to require games to be unlocked online so that second hand purchasers may not use the game without paying the game company directly. This is not just for online play, it is for all games even just single player.

This is the sort of thing that makes me mad about current IP laws.

 

[TheMadMonk]

Ferrari takes their car back? I hardly think so.

I'm not much of a car person so I'm not aware of the models involved but when you "buy" certain Ferraris you have to agree to keep them at a track somewhere in Italy and you can only drive the car when Ferrari say you can (and I think you have to share it with other people but I'm not exactly in the market for a new Ferrari so don't quote me on that). It would not surprise me in the slightest if there was some sort of clause that allowed Ferrari to prevent you from accessing the car somewhere in the contract.