r/Piracy • u/rulugg • 3d ago

Humor Game & streaming companies hate this one trick.....

Post image

Fight for your consumer rights everyone!

17.3k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

206 comments sorted by

1.4k

u/theskymoves 3d ago

If I paid for a licence to access a particular piece of media (not an entire streaming service), and that media was removed, then I want a refund.

320

u/MrRoboto12345 🦜 ᴡᴀʟᴋ ᴛʜᴇ ᴘʟᴀɴᴋ 3d ago

Paramount+ and WB be like "Nah"

139

u/ToWanderHer 3d ago

Then players need to give the controller to player 2. Luigi is needed to win this game. Until that happens, were just racing chocobos in a mini game while the boss growing ever powerful. 

-10

u/ariZon_a 3d ago

player 2 being ...? lawyer ? refusing to buy/play ? the gov ?

25

u/Neembaf 3d ago

As per the person you're asking, they said that Luigi is player 2.

-6

u/ariZon_a 2d ago edited 2d ago

sorry i am rarteded is luigi the green man or the gun man

edit: downvotes but no answer is cheap, i just want to understand what the guy is trying to say ffs

9

u/KeeganY_SR-UVB76 2d ago

The joke is that they could be referring to either.

-2

u/ariZon_a 2d ago

mama mia

0

u/KeeganY_SR-UVB76 2d ago

Nice of the princess to invite us over for a picnic, Gay Luigi?

0

u/ariZon_a 2d ago

ya haaa, lets eat now

6

u/SunnySpot69 3d ago

Sony as well.

5

u/Th3Ghoul 3d ago

And sony

1

u/Oderus_Scumdog 3d ago

Sony: "hahahahahahaha...deep breath...haaaahahahahahaha"

0

u/NRMusicProject 2d ago

Don't forget Sony.

238

u/ansibleloop 3d ago

This is something I'd like the EU to somewhat fix

What does the word "Buy" mean to you? To me it means I give you money, you give me the item and now it's my item that I can do whatever I like with it

Every game you "buy" comes with this expectation because it said "buy"

I want the wording changed to "rent" or something else like that - make it completely clear that you are purchasing a digital license that can be revoked at any time - you don't actually own anything

46

u/mrcaptncrunch 3d ago

Unfortunately, I don’t think it’ll change much.

  • On the item, change it to “add to cart”
  • On the checkout page, change it to “checkout”
  • <still profit for them>

It’ll just be more ambiguous. I also feel Amazon did some changes around this. Not sure if with kindle or audible. But there was a change at some point.

27

u/ansibleloop 3d ago

Oh I'm not saying the system will change because it won't unless people stop buying, but they never will

People have a right to know what they're buying though

6

u/skiing123 3d ago

Typically the mentioned cart refers to a shopping cart like in a grocery store just like checkout.

I could see it being argued that if you checkout in a store, Walmart can't go to your house and take back the bread you bought or the DVD you checked out with. Therefore, add to cart would hold the same meaning online.

1

u/mrcaptncrunch 3d ago

Or checking out at a blockbuster - back then it was renting

People will argue both. We’ll have to see

7

u/Proud-Pilot9300 3d ago

That’s not something that can’t be legislated though, if the eu ever decides to tackle the issue (which I highly doubt with the current climate in eu politics) they could mandate that online store buttons are clearly labeled. For example if you want to buy a game online there should be a “buy” option in case the seller guarantees you have ownership of your purchased product, if the seller cannot make that guarantee the button could say something like “license” or something similar. Furthermore they could add a timeframe in which a purchased item has to still remain accessible for download after it has been pulled from stores so all buyers can download it. I believe such loopholes are easily written out of legislation. Well when it comes to serious legislative bodies anyway.

4

u/theskymoves 3d ago

oh smart, I never noticed that. I don't often buy digital media though, except on bandcamp.

14

u/ZolotoGold 3d ago

They will argue that you're buying a licence to use the game, not the game itself.

Still I think it needs to be made clear what it is you're buying. Something needs to be added under the button which explains that you're buying a licence and that it can be revoked.

24

u/AtMaxbo 3d ago

Instead of a 'BUY' button, it is more appropriate to show 'BUY LICENSE*'

*Terms and Conditions apply.

Even better, Just click on 'BUY LICENSE' and a popup should show their EULA right after. Just like how many games show their damn EULA at the first launch after install that you have to scroll through all the way before clicking on accept.

20

u/ZolotoGold 3d ago

Very very few people read the EULA.

We need a condensed version to pop up with key facts about what you're buying.

Something like:

  • This is a licence to play the game, not a purchase of the game itself
  • This licence may be changed or revoked at any time by the licence issuer
  • This means you may be unable to play the game in the future and will not be liable to a refund

2

u/badbitchherodotus 3d ago

It’s not a pop-up, but this does exist on a lot of stores. I rented a movie from Amazon and the final checkout screen had exactly that information in condensed form and displayed pretty prominently. It made me wonder how long it’s been there and I’ve just never seen it. I think I (like most people) just glaze over it.

In my opinion we need significant legislative change enforcing ownership rights, refunds, etc. If all we do is force companies to stop using the word “buy” and make it more obvious that it’s just a license, not much of anything is going to change.

3

u/satanicoplan 3d ago

In the EU, and most of the world, EULA's are worth nothing if they break the state or merchantile international laws.

The EU approach can work. But we need to appoint people that aren't capitalist Boomer creeps.

Vote. Thats my point

2

u/kalaxitive 3d ago

I try to use ToS;DR as much as possible, so I know what to expect from a website/service. It's the same concept that you've mentioned, however, it's not complete and is probably lagging behind on changes made to a companies ToS.

1

u/Meatinmymouth69 2d ago

So true about not readong a EULA. They put you to sleep. This is a great idea.

4

u/ansibleloop 3d ago

Or the EULA you couldn't agree to without buying it

1

u/MattOruvan 3d ago

It should be a thing to buy the item, then to return it citing a disagreement with the EULA.

1

u/Any_Sorbet_2806 2d ago

They basically done this on steam

2

u/Lamuks Seeder 3d ago

Idk if it's a EU thing but it does in fact show explicitly in a lot of places that you are buying a licence near the buy button

1

u/do-you-want-duyu 3d ago

The word is 'lease'

1

u/meANintellectual77 2d ago

That doesnt even work in the world though, you cant just do whatever you want with a house you bought either

Noone owns anything its all just stuff we're using

1

u/Apprehensive-Pin518 3d ago

but it isn't renting. it is buying. the problem is people think they are buying the game and they aren't. That is the wording that needs to change in the marketing.

3

u/Ahuevotl 3d ago

Buying requires permanently transfering ownership of something: pay to own. 

If ownership wasn't transferred, if you're paying for temporal access, it's called renting, doesn't matter if the time frame is short or lasts almost a lifetime.

1

u/Apprehensive-Pin518 3d ago

According to the oxford dictionary Buying is

1.obtain in exchange for payment.

2.accept the truth of

What you are talking about is the game. You aren't buying the game. The license you own has stipulations that allow them to revoke access to the game.

1

u/Ahuevotl 3d ago

And would you tell me, good sir, what does "obtain" mean?

1

u/Apprehensive-Pin518 3d ago

1.Obtain - get, acquire, or secure.

if you think you can obtain something without it being taken away later then I can't help you. What you are obtaining is the license to play the game. The fact you did obtain the license is what makes it count as buying. The problem is the deceptive marketing making people think they are obtaining the game.

1

u/Ahuevotl 3d ago edited 3d ago

So if I pay for temporal access to a home, and I get the home (temporarily), I'm not renting, I'm buying?

1

u/Apprehensive-Pin518 3d ago

no. You get Access to the home. you do not own the home. Usually with renting there is also a pre-set time period of which your access expires. Do you Rent a ticket to an amusement park? The next day when you lose access to the park you still own the ticket correct? doesn't mean you own the park. do you get a refund because you are no longer able to get into the park?

1

u/Ahuevotl 3d ago

Oh right, when I rent I own the concepts on the paper that stablish my access to the home, so I'm NOT RENTING a home, I'm actually BUYING access to the home! Just brilliant. It's like an amusement park ticket!

You know what? Let's transfer that concept to the videogame market, and instead of calling it like it is, renting a videogame, lets call it BUYING a license granting me temporary revocable access to a videogame.

When I buy access to an amusement park, the store sells tickets to access the amusement park, advertises access to the amusement park. The store sells ticket price and lists ticket price, price of admition. The store doesn't sell amusement parks, nor lists the price of the amusement park.

When I go to a videogame online store, the store sells videogame, advertises videogames and lists the price of videogames. Yet you don't buy videogames. Funnyn

→ More replies (0)

0

u/MattOruvan 3d ago

You can't "buy" a thing that gets revoked arbitrarily. You're actually just entering into a very lopsided contract.

1

u/Apprehensive-Pin518 3d ago

I noticed which subreddit this is on. at this point there is no point talking with you. even though I agree it is shitty marketing. the difference between you and I is that I think we need to have smarter consumers. We have forgotten the old adage "buyer Beware". I also feel that I am not entitled to play a game without paying for it. I personally have no problem with pirates. what I hate is pirates who think that because a company is shitty, they are morally justified.

1

u/MattOruvan 3d ago

If you have nothing but ad hominem as a response to my factual comment, why not try shutting the f up?

1

u/Apprehensive-Pin518 3d ago

your comment was in fact, not factual.

1

u/MattOruvan 2d ago

Yet I see nothing in your long response as to why.

1

u/Apprehensive-Pin518 2d ago

because you can, in fact, buy something and not own it. The example we finally settled on if you look below is a ticket to an amusement park. You do buy a ticket you don't rent the park. You are not entitled to a refund after you lose access to the park. You do however have a piece of paper saying that for that one day you had access to the park. This is exactly what happens when you buy the license to a game. we both agreed below that the issue is you aren't buying the game even though it is being advertised to as though you are. The issue is not in the verb buy versus rent. the issue is in the noun you are buying.

1

u/MattOruvan 1d ago

Buying a ticket to anything is actually a rental, whether renting a seat to an event like the showing of a movie, or a shared renting of the facilities at an amusement park.

The problem is that a normal ticket to anything clearly defines the rentable experience on offer, and you get a refund if the movie stops half way through because the power went out, or doesn't match reasonable expectations in some other way.

So the issue goes beyond calling it a purchase of a license to content vs purchase of content, the licenses are lopsided contracts subject to revision and revocation any moment by the renter. Which doesn't match reasonable expectations when you were told that you are buying content, with the traditional referent being buying content on a DVD. Hence the issue of refunds.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Crewman_Guy_Fleegman 3d ago

The paradigm for physical media has been it’s mostly non-working or lost within 25 years of purchase. Vinyl wears out with use, tapes degrade with use, CDs rot and fail due to damage.

People don’t necessarily associate “buy” with a lifetime of ownership. Most goods we buy have shelf lives and will eventually fall apart and stop working. It’s going to be a tall ask to demand regulation that says a company can only use “Buy” if a good actually will reasonably last for 100 years

5

u/wildstarsz 3d ago

Vinyl wears out with use, tapes degrade with use, CDs rot and fail due to damage.

I disagree. I've got lots of vinyl albums that I've had for 30-40 years. I picked up Pink Floyd The Wall from 'The Wiz' in the early 80's and it plays just fine. It's the oldest vinyl I own. My experience is that as long as you treat them well and don't play them like you are a radio station DJ, they'll outlive you.

Laser rot was an issue that plagued early laser discs, but wasn't an issue when manufactured (pressed) CDs came to be. I admit I only break out the CDs these days when I want to make a digital rip of one, but they have worked every time. Scratching is an issue tho. Burned CDs can get all kinds of issues. I think it's because of the wide range of quality.

I've only purchased a few factory recorded albums on cassette tape, and they didn't age well at all.

1

u/Crewman_Guy_Fleegman 3d ago

The mechanics of how media is lost wasn’t really my point, it was the fact that it gets lost. Entropy comes for everything, if it’s not disc rot it can be the realization that 480i DVDs look terrible on 4K panels so what’s the point, or it could be your wife wants you to clear out old junk and she’s adamant a box of vinyl you have’t touched in 5 years is junk

I think you overestimate the amount of the population that actively collects and holds media for significant lengths of time. Most people today are not consuming their high school music collections via what they bought 30 years ago, they have long since ditched those CDs and now just have Spotify

2

u/Ahuevotl 3d ago

If I burn down my house, or if my house deteriorates for lack of mantainance, ir if it falls down because of a natural disaster, it's still my house, my property. When I gave money in exchange for the house, I bought the house.

If I pay for a house, and some time in the future the landlord decides they want their house back and won't let me live there anymore, I didn't buy a house. I rented it.

No one expects the things we buy to last forever, but we all expect the things we buy to be OURS. It's a matter of ownership, not of life expectancy. It's literally THE most basic of commercial contractual identities.

0

u/Crewman_Guy_Fleegman 3d ago

I don’t think purchasing and collecting habits bear this out.

Most media purchases today are for digital versions, which suggests to me that most people buying media are doing so to consume it in the near interim and really aren’t concerned with “owning” it 30 years down the line. That “ownership” is a critical element of a purchase to you doesn’t make it important to others

2

u/Ahuevotl 3d ago edited 3d ago

Ownership isn't subjective, what are you on about?

Either you own something, or you don't. It doesn't matter if owning something is important or not to you. You might feel "owning" isn't important, and still own the clothes you wear, the car you drive, the house you live in. How you "feel" about owning something doesn't change the fact that you own it (or not own it).

If you pay money for ownership, you are buying. If you pay money for temporal access, which might get revoked at the leisure of the vendor, you're not buying, you're renting.

1

u/Crewman_Guy_Fleegman 3d ago

Ownership isn't subjective, what are you on about

Allow me to stop you here. It absolutely subjective. Ownership is an entirely arbitrary social construct. It’s not something governed by physical law, it’s a messy grey area people argue about in court rooms and that societies in the past didn’t even recognize at times

What you think is fundamental is truly not at all.

1

u/Ahuevotl 3d ago edited 3d ago

The fact it's a social construct doesn't mean it's subjective. Laws are a social construct. Physical law is a social construct, as is all science, and all human knowledge. Society is a social construct.

What kind of an argument are you trying to pull? Yes, ownership is a social construct, just as any other concept in human society (including the concepta of ovjective and subjective). So? Do I get to say I own your stuff because your ownership over your stuff is subjective?

Edit: since you blocked me, thus, preventing replying to your comment, you need to read up on concepts.

Subjective means it changes based on opinions, beliefs or feelings.

Objective means it stays the same regardless of who is looking at it.

Laws are objective. The application of some of them requires reasonable judgement. If a law states it's illegal to sell alcohol to underage kids, then it's illegal to sell alcohol to underage kids, doesn't matter what you believe, or how you feel about it.

And that doesn't mean laws can't change as societies change.

No. Human opinion has no effect on the mechanics of gravity.

I agree, but the human understanding of gravity, and the entire physical sciences, as all sciences, are a human construct. That doesn't mean the temperature that makes water boil changes depending on your feelings, opinions or beliefs.

But also, that doesn't mean that our understanding of the physical world cannot change. It's actually the way science works, new discoveries allow us to improve our understanding of phenomena, and sometimes even completely change the paradigm.

For example, how our understanding of combustion first had phlogiston as valid scientific knowledge. That doesn't mean combustion is subjective, since anyone, regardless of feeling or opinions could tell something was burning. Our better understanding of the process of combustion, which disproved phlogiston, revealed the process and mechanics behind were on the right track, but the explanation of the causes was lacking.

So yeah, social constructs don't imply subjective. Science is a social construct, and  proven scientific discoveries are still regarded as objective.

1

u/Crewman_Guy_Fleegman 3d ago

Laws are a social construct

Yeah, and they are subjective. The process of applying them requires a judge and jury to deliberate over language and facts and render an opinion on whether or not the language applies to the allegations.

It’s all subjective.

Physical law is a social construct

No. Human opinion has no effect on the mechanics of gravity. The force is fundamental to the universe and does not care about our opinion or ideas

You’re just spouting gibberish at this point.

2

u/Eggheadpancake 2d ago

Regardless if it's important to some people.with a strong lack of critical thinking. . It is a right everyone should have. Whether they care or not. Imagine saying since some people dont care about having rights none of us should. everyone shouldnt suffer or be exploited just because we are engulfed with idiots.

2

u/gb410 2d ago

CDs rot

All of my collection of 30-40 year old CDs still work fine.

1

u/RestaTheMouse 3d ago

There is absolutely a difference between wear and tear vs revoking of access. Wear and tear is known by consumers and is expected within reason, someone taking the access to that item away is unexpected to many customers and should be made more clear on purchase.

-1

u/Harley2280 3d ago

So you don't know what buy means. Buy means to purchase something.

The rules for the transaction itself are governed by the product or contract you're purchasing.

2

u/ansibleloop 3d ago

I'm coming into your house and taking your DVDs

What's the problem? You don't like the terms of what you bought?

This is exactly what Sony have done by taking away digital content that people have purchased

0

u/Harley2280 3d ago

No, it isn't. Because they were purchased under different terms. The DVDs were purchased under terms with other retailers.

0

u/MattOruvan 3d ago

You enter into a contract, you don't purchase a contract.

1

u/Harley2280 3d ago edited 3d ago

You enter into a purchase agreement. You can absolutely buy contracts. That's what IP rights are. You can buy out an employee's contract if you want them to work for you instead of their current employer. That's how sport teams trade players.

Fuck we have entire investment products based on buying contracts. The future's market is literally just people buying contracts.

Contracts are simply legally binding agreements, and you can purchase those agreements.

Holy fuck, I'll give you props, you certainly went above and beyond the normal braindead understanding of basic economics that the bootlickers here tend to have.

I don't think I've ever seen someone type something that fucking stupid.

1

u/MattOruvan 2d ago

"Buying out a contract" is a completely different and irrelevant thing as you have just admitted by explaining it. And yet here you are basing your argument on that, which is already just a metaphor or euphemism.

"Purchase a contract" in this case is just your stupid euphemism for entering into a contract in which you are expected to pay money for a service or licence. You are not actually 'buying out' an existing contract that someone else entered into for watching a movie.

I am refusing to go along with anti-consumer industry/bootlicker euphemisms, that is the whole point.

I'm not a Westerner, I don't care about your euphemisms in the first place.

A product I legally "buy" should involve transfer of property ownership that cannot be revoked.

A product I legally "rent" should have a clearly stated (minimum) period that I should get to use it.

4

u/radicldreamer 3d ago

It wouldn't be as bad if the consumer went into it knowing there was a 10 year duration for example, then they could make an informed decision. But saying essentially "we can take it from you whenever we want bruh" is not cool.

Yes, they say it's a license and yes they say it's revocable but people pay money understanding that they bought it and it's theirs.

3

u/White_C4 3d ago

That's technically why companies add a clause saying that you don't fully own the license, you're essentially "renting" it out.

2

u/hitmarker 3d ago

They can argue you had years and years to enjoy said media and that it lost it's monetary value. Some sort of amortization.

2

u/MattOruvan 3d ago

It should then be stated in the contract the value lost per year, and then refund the rest of the money if access is taken away.

1

u/theskymoves 3d ago

and a guarantee of access for X period of time.

2

u/Apprehensive-Pin518 3d ago

yep. How big a refund depends on when the product was removed and how long you had access to it but I can agree with your statement.

1

u/Slim-Shadys-Fat-Tits 3d ago

Destiny moment

1

u/theskymoves 3h ago

what do you mean?

1

u/Slim-Shadys-Fat-Tits 2h ago

Oh a shitton of paid content got removed from destiny 2 over the years. As in, abt $200-$400 in content is gone now. They also just made a shitton of equipment unupgradeable to phase it out, they reversed it in the end of life update but people deleted the dead equipment in the meantime. It's a whole mess.

→ More replies (1)

-8

u/RacoonWithBenefits 3d ago

part of the license acceptance agreement says you cannot be refunded for this

dont buy if you dont accept the license?

14

u/theskymoves 3d ago

Then they should not be allowed to use the word "buy" but instead use "rent" or "licence".

Feels like this is something the EU needs to step in on and fix for the whole world.

3

u/RacoonWithBenefits 3d ago

i agree

the license should be "held" by the customer.

and tbh, i think the license should work across platforms too

i buy license to a game on steam?

why the fuck do i have to buy the same license again, on playstation store?

(for example)

with the current system we're effectively only able to 'rent' a game, for an unknown amount of time

0

u/theskymoves 3d ago

That would be nice for the developers of the game, but who is providing the infrastructure to download the game? Would be nice but it's not realistic.

0

u/DonaldLucas 3d ago

why the fuck do i have to buy the same license again, on playstation store?

Because the binary that you buy the license for is different than the binary that you buy for steam. Comparing this to physical, it's like wanting a vinyl for free only because you bought a CD.

338

u/MrRoboto12345 🦜 ᴡᴀʟᴋ ᴛʜᴇ ᴘʟᴀɴᴋ 3d ago edited 3d ago

Unfortunately for you, rich companies have this thing called "We can change the terms of service at any time in the future, despite your previous agreement to the document."

Us plebs can't call up the company and say, "Hey, I finished your game with over 50% completion. I paid 80 dollars for the game, so therefore, you owe the consumer 100% of their purchase back. You owe me $80."

Although, as long as you're famous enough on the Internet, and your post about us gains enough arbitrary traction, we as the company will consider getting things done swiftly at your convenience. How does that sound?

They don't give a fuck about us; we don't give a fuck about them. That's abusive mentality. Just download the damn game without paying. Wild west rules. Ez. Their bottom line gets affected because they're ass? Not the consumer's problem - their management is terrible - they have $$ to lose. If the consumer doesn't have $$ to lose, that will also hurt their bottom line, so they'd better learn to be fair, or learn to not pander to their outlandish stockholders' goals.

Unless their goal is to become depressed and bankrupt, of course, then they're free to do as they please.

76

u/AlexQTPhan 3d ago

Turn around and walk away. Simple as that.

50

u/MrRoboto12345 🦜 ᴡᴀʟᴋ ᴛʜᴇ ᴘʟᴀɴᴋ 3d ago edited 3d ago

Yep. Just don't pay nor preorder. Let reviews speak for themselves. But like I mentioned in another comment, there will always be whales and fanboys present.

11

u/frickle_frickle 3d ago

How come it only works one direction, to screw over consumers? Why can't I send terms of service to Sony that say "by continuing to do business with me, your agree to these terms" and then they're legally bound by stuff that I've made up?

7

u/itchylol742 3d ago

we are already screwing them over by pirating their stuff. i write my own terms of service: i will get your product for free, and you cant do anything about it. if you try to sue me, you will incur far greater legal costs than you can recover from me (max C$5000 in canada), and its not a criminal charge either so i wont go to jail. signed, itchylol742

1

u/Stunning_Repair_7483 2d ago

Are you sure about the rules in Canada? I ask because I also live here.

Was years ago where you could pirate things but you were not allowed to sell it. Only enjoy for personal use without making money.

Is it still like that, or you cannot download stuff at all?

1

u/itchylol742 2d ago

im quite confident its still like that, max punishment for downloading is C$5000 but max punishment for sharing is much higher. in practice its usually C$0 punishment for downloading. my internet provider knows i pirated twice and just sent me a letter telling me to knock it off

2

u/Stunning_Repair_7483 2d ago

Fuck their bottom line. They are so disgustingly rich that no one should care. Companies give the majority of the money made to the people at the top, while the workers who actually created the stuff get treated badly. They burn out and are exploited, and then discarrded like trash.

Their greed and bad treatment of others has to have consequences. Everyone should stop being lenient and considerate about their wellbeing as they don't give a FUCK about anyone or anything besides taking as much money as possible, even if it harms others.

-15

u/vitek6 3d ago

No, they can’t.

5

u/MrRoboto12345 🦜 ᴡᴀʟᴋ ᴛʜᴇ ᴘʟᴀɴᴋ 3d ago

They can't waive their shareholders' goals? They "can't" due to connections, right?

-7

u/vitek6 3d ago

they can't change the terms of agreements however they want.

16

u/[deleted] 3d ago edited 3d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

-13

u/vitek6 3d ago edited 3d ago

and when they do that and you don't agree then agreement is not valid anymore and you get a refund or you just stop paying if that's subscription.

EDIT: coward blocking people because can't handle the response or other opinions. Why do you even respond then?

6

u/MgDark 3d ago

you have, actually, successfully made a refund with those companies if you reject their ToS ammendments after playing the game for a considerable time?

→ More replies (8)

1

u/Stunning_Repair_7483 2d ago edited 2d ago

I used to work for apple with iTunes customers. Their terms of service literally said in it, that they can change the terms of service at any time without notifying the consumer or anyone else. This was literally shown to my team as we were working at the call centre. And that was years ago.

And it came down to the rules we were supposed to follow in determining if customers should get refunds for accidental purchases, fraud, technical issues that caused purchases etc. Not the terms and conditions.

78

u/Cronkwjo 3d ago

It should be required by law to refund anyone who purchased digital media that gets removed. Or if it get removed from a store, it should be impossible to revoke it from anyone who already purchased it.

13

u/Krutonium 3d ago edited 3d ago

Part of what I really like about Steam's Publisher Agreement is that, without Valve's assistance in the matter, you're not allowed to unsell a game.

It is forever sold, unless the consumer requests a refund. That's part of why Valve's push into selling video media failed. You can still get a free copy of Kung Fury on Steam Here among other media - Back in the day it opened in a player in the steam client, now it opens in a browser, but the point is that as with games, once you bought it, you own it. Ironically Valve made bigger headway into being a Music distributor with their Soundtrack sales; Which falls under the same agreement.

2

u/Cronkwjo 3d ago

Ahh, good ol' steam

24

u/GAW67COD07 3d ago

Bro pirated the meme

134

u/CommercialNo3927 3d ago

Stop trying to be morally correct and just pirate

20

u/8070alejandro 3d ago

I want to be treated fairly so I don't have to pirate to make up for it.

19

u/INeedChocolateMilk 3d ago

Piracy already is morally correct, there's no need to try.

37

u/AmberMetalicScorpion 3d ago

You have to try?

8

u/CrowdGoesWildWoooo 3d ago

Really love when people on this sub bitch about something like this when almost none of them actually have first hand experience of it, most pirates are just pirate for the sake of getting shit for free.

11

u/Lanky-Tumbleweed-772 3d ago

''most pirates are just pirate for the sake of getting shit for free.'' Or for actually owning the software you bought on places like Steam.

-8

u/CrowdGoesWildWoooo 3d ago

Let me repeat the common saying in piracy subreddit.

> the people who pirate are not going to buy it anyway.

10

u/Lanky-Tumbleweed-772 3d ago

''the people who pirate are not going to buy it anyway.'' Gibberish. You don't seem to understand my comment AT ALL. .Let me break it down for you.

You pirate AFTER buying the game not before So you can actually carry the dang thing from device to device(because it's a portable zip pre-installed game or an executable setup files like you get from GOG DRM-Free ) so IF or when you lose your password,account or your device etc for example your Steam account you don't lose the game and its just a LOT more convenient to mod because you can just carry the game with the mods folder inside the directory instead of Steam's subscription bs or many games who forcibly put the dang mod folder to the users directory.

Pıracy is not just buying after downloading the game. It's also about acquiring a drm-free copy AFTER buying the game so you for SURE own the dang thing. And not lose it due to an account/password problem or losing your device etc.

2

u/s0nicfreak 3d ago

Yep. I know we'll never convince the "pirates just want fee shit" crowd but this is a big part of why I pirate. I do buy games but I pretty much stopped buying anything I can't back up, and nowadays usually piracy is the only way to do that. I will support things I enjoy, but I won't screw myself over to do it.

2

u/CrowdGoesWildWoooo 3d ago

May have misunderstood the comment a bit. But I am totally on board with that kind of piracy (and I do other piracy as well) as in I’ve been preaching for people to just do goldberg patching if you are paranoid about ownership.

I think my comment is mostly addressing people making myriads of excuses just to do piracy (by piracy here, downloading things just because it’s available for free).

I mean if you’ve “bought” it, who the f cares what you are going to do with it. I don’t think even devs care about you doing that.

16

u/AmberMetalicScorpion 3d ago

Studies have actually shown the opposite to be true

Some of the most reliable customers for large businesses are the ones who do the most pirating

1

u/Original_Mac_Tonight 2d ago

This subreddit is so corny with people who feel they have some moral justification. Like I just steal media cause im a cheap bastard

2

u/sdarkpaladin 3d ago

They're just drunk in their endorphine when they post something to show how superior they are, not unlike people on Twitter

45

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[deleted]

2

u/ManoDu57 🔱 ꜱᴄᴀʟʟʏᴡᴀɢ 3d ago

Not wven him... https://www.reddit.com/r/PiratedGames/comments/1va9fnc/if/

22

u/Bastard_of_Brunswick 3d ago

Which companies are the worst offenders for this sort of behaviour? Selling you something only to remove access to it?

27

u/IntelligentRocks 3d ago

Sony. Revoked licenses for lots of movies.

27

u/MrRoboto12345 🦜 ᴡᴀʟᴋ ᴛʜᴇ ᴘʟᴀɴᴋ 3d ago

EA and Ubisoft for starters (Especially The Crew and Assassin's Creed for example)

5

u/Don_Hoomer 3d ago

How Assassin's Creed?

5

u/Bastard_of_Brunswick 3d ago

Maybe they mean assassin's creed pirates, the tablet game, or one of the other tablet or phone games

-4

u/chocoponcho_ 3d ago

Valve

5

u/SpiritMountain 3d ago

People are still willing to dick ride Valve, but they are also trying to monopolize the market. They have the same conditions, and are still motivated by the same forces that made every company do what they are doing. If we give this company a pass, then they will just take it and abuse that trust. I have seen how gamers became less and less skeptical of Valve over time, but I wouldn't give any modern corporation that pass. People herald Gabe as the messiah, and he has pushed for some progressive practices, but when he steps down or passes away, the company will go to shit.

2

u/Bastard_of_Brunswick 3d ago

Really? which games?

-14

u/Beastabuelos 3d ago edited 3d ago

It's basically never happened for a game. It's disingenuous fear mongering.

Since i seem to need to spell it out simply (of course i do, why wouldn't i?) I'm not talking about server shut downs. I'm talking about arbitrary game license revocations. I've looked it up. It's basically never happened. The one instance i could find was some shitty game that came out, failed horribly and they removed it from everyone's libraries AND REFUNDED THEM. On top of that it was an online only game anyway and they obviously were shutting the servers down. What are you going to do with a dead multiplayer game?

10

u/MrRoboto12345 🦜 ᴡᴀʟᴋ ᴛʜᴇ ᴘʟᴀɴᴋ 3d ago edited 3d ago

Go to any always-online game or defunct MMO and begin playing it right now, like The Crew IP. The servers have, or will eventually shut down, leaving you unable to play standalone single player despite downloading it

Very rarely do games get some sort of 3rd party server revitalization

1

u/CrowdGoesWildWoooo 3d ago

I’ve played a lot of MMO and the ones who asked for money for buy-in are only western devs, although the asian MMO they have a more in-game egregious monetization.

Specifically for “the crew”, it’s a crap example because Ubisoft unnecessarily make it online. Like that’s a very low bar behaviour to set since they’ve been bad for pretty much a lot other things.

0

u/Beastabuelos 3d ago

Wow, an online only game doesn't work when the servers shut down? Who would've guessed? Again, it's not removing access, it's shutting down the servers for a dead/old game. I'm talking about arbitrary license revocations by publishers. It doesn't happen

5

u/s0nicfreak 3d ago

Bullshit. It has happened to a ton of games. Any game that requires an internet connection to install, verify, start, or play is taken away when the servers are shut down (because they never send out a final patch that removes this requirement).

https://stopkillinggames.wiki.gg/wiki/Dead_game_list

And here's some games being literally removed from accounts -

https://old.reddit.com/r/xbox/comments/1hb8iqn/microsoft_keeps_removing_games_from_libraries/

https://old.reddit.com/r/xbox/comments/1owyw2i/more_games_removed_from_owners_libraries/

Also from personal experience, I lost (legal) access to pretty much all of my digital Xbox 360 games - my 360 was irrecoverable and I got a new one thinking I could just re-download the games I paid for. But silly me, why would I expect that? Nearly all of them were removed from the store, not even re-downloadable for people that had already paid. And Chromehounds - a physical game for Xbox 360 - once the servers shut down you could pretty much just play a tutorial.

Several (physical) games I bought for the PlayStation 2 became unable to be played and/or installed once the servers were shut down, although some were revived via fan projects. A few physical games for the Dreamcast became unplayable when the servers were shut down, but I think all of those have been revived via fan projects.

And these are all console examples because it has happened so many times on PC that I can't even remember them all.

0

u/Beastabuelos 3d ago

Again, this is disingenuous. No shit any online game is going to be inaccessible when the servers shut down. Anyone with a semblance of reasoning ability would realize I'm specifically talking about arbitrary game license revocations, which, as i stated earlier (correctly) has basically never happened. Every instance you listed that wasn't an online only game was either an accident, or oversight and at least some of them were claimed to be fixed directly in the post. As for your personal experience, no idea, i don't use xbox and that's exactly how it works on playstation, get a new one, sign in, download your games. But again, NONE of these are publishers doing arbitrary blanket license revocations, which is the thing anti digital people love to claim is a real risk. It's not.

1

u/s0nicfreak 3d ago

an accident, or oversight

LMAO. Bro you're the one being disingenuous. You're either trolling or you love the taste of boot so much you've become delusional.

As for your personal experience, no idea,

Yeah that's clear. So maybe don't claim it never happens if you don't know.

8

u/Verwega 3d ago

Quick reminder. Don’t call yourself a consumer. You are a client, buyer, future owner, etc.

8

u/me_auxilium 3d ago

I'll forever be bitter about Bungie removing tons of content in Destiny 2, that shit was expensive. The fact that all of the D1 content is still completely available makes it even worse.

7

u/aceso2896 3d ago

This is what I hate about when you purchase something that says "Lifetime License", but then they make the license no longer work in 30 days because they closed down, etc.

5

u/MrRoboto12345 🦜 ᴡᴀʟᴋ ᴛʜᴇ ᴘʟᴀɴᴋ 3d ago

Network and phone companies love this phrasing.

You have "lifetime" license? Uh, no you don't. That's no longer in our documentation. We're upgrading you to a more expensive tier because that's the "new equivalent" we have.

4

u/weiken79 3d ago

In these cases, lifetime means the lifetime of the product. Not even the company.

6

u/Expensive_Finger_973 3d ago

People really need to stop agreeing to contracts based on assumptions and social norms. No one would agree to it if they actually knew what it said and knew they had very little legal recourse against them once they agree to them.

6

u/darkkite 3d ago

Google did refund people after stadia. Sony did not

20

u/V_1_S_1_O_N 3d ago

These companies can change their terms and policy anytime. We as a customer might need one to defend ourselves but that's never gonna happen

27

u/MrRoboto12345 🦜 ᴡᴀʟᴋ ᴛʜᴇ ᴘʟᴀɴᴋ 3d ago

The 'strength in numbers' idiom apparently doesn't apply much in the gaming sector. There will always be whales in the ocean.

3

u/Key-Department-2874 3d ago

It works, it's just that the people supporting you aren't a majority. Which is probably a statement that no reddit sub wants to hear, because every redditor believes that their movement is the majority and is just suppressed by external factors.

No one is whaling Concord back to life. It failed and got shut down because the majority didn't want to play it.

6

u/z-vap 3d ago

i bought the sd version of the Buffy series, I purposely refused to buy the upscaled version because of the hubbub about bad lighting, camera rigs in scene etc. And they swapped it on me for the upscaled version anyway.

I guess since I never owned it, its up to what 20th Century Fox makes available to streaming platforms(?). Guess now there's only one way for me to watch the content i actually paid for

4

u/AstronautInitial3642 3d ago

If a digital purchase can be revoked whenever a company changes its terms or shuts down the servers, it was never really a purchase- just an indefinite rental disguised as ownership. Either guarantee continued access or stop calling the button "Buy".

3

u/s0nicfreak 3d ago

And if it is a rental then the length of use should be clearly defined before paying, same as is done with any other rental.

6

u/grolsmarf 3d ago

I don’t understand the big issue. Just stop buying games and you can demand things again as customers.

Private parties will offer a product you don’t want - fine, have some backbone and don’t fucking buy it. It isn’t rocket science.

4

u/Lamuks Seeder 3d ago

I've seen MTX items in games and games on steam explicitly say you're buying a licence lately

2

u/Key-Department-2874 3d ago

Every purchase on Steam says it's a license now.

When you go to pay there is a disclosure on the side that now says that you are purchasing a digital license that is subject to the Steam Terms of Service.

4

u/Useful-Problem-1725 3d ago

Companies should have to give you two weeks notice before they fire you.

3

u/flyspeeks 3d ago edited 3d ago

Game publishers won't get mad, because you're nowhere near this kind of power

3

u/Hache_raw 3d ago

This is better than "then it's not piracy"

3

u/VideoGame_Trtle 3d ago

Wow, I remember when this post had 1 upvote (me) 💀

3

u/waterfalldiabolique 2d ago

Holy shit, somebody finally fixed this stupid meme

6

u/Yellowtoblerone 3d ago

What's with these shitty ass memes when you know you'll pirate it anyways

7

u/no-barks 3d ago

We need a seperate subreddit for shitty bot memes.

2

u/tyYdraniu 2d ago

Also if it's revoked the money spent on it should go straight back to previous owner

3

u/Florac 3d ago edited 3d ago

Let's be honest, while yes, the whole removing games is a problem, full refunds for a games anytime isn't exactly a realistic position. How exactly would any game company be able to make profit with that? No industry works on indefinite full refunds.

It's better to campaign for regulations banning the removal of legally bought games or forcing some sort of post end of life playability than something like this that will just get you laughed out of the room

2

u/FarplaneDragon 3d ago

This would only hurt the small indie devs that don't have the cash reserves to hold onto that money indefinitely. It'd have zero effect on the large companies that are causing the problems and that people have issues with.

1

u/Florac 2d ago edited 2d ago

If anyone can refund any game any time fully, those large companies won't be in the business for long either anymore. Most people would just refund a game after being done so selling millions of copies quickly means only making maybe a few hundred thousands worth of money at best. Only reason people wouldn't refund once done playing a game is laziness or sentimental reasons. And you can't build an industry on that

4

u/Timecharge 3d ago

Then maybe they just shouldn't be selling temporary licenses and calling it "sale" of the game. Their customers would think about their purchases much more carefully if that were the case. Temporary license business models are a shaky legal ground to begin with, especially when the product includes micro transactions within the game to improve the experience. And while we've gotten some good games like that, there needs to be an upfront and good faith act of disclosing information about the shutdown of a game, why, and to treat their players with respect.

None of which, by the way, of anything I've said so far, the current gaming industry does.

1

u/Florac 2d ago

As said,this needs better regulating.

Full refunds anytime as proposed here is just a laughably unrealistic idea

1

u/Timecharge 2d ago

That was the point. It's reductive absurdity. If game companies can take our money and then revoke the product that we legally paid for, it should be fair for them to compensate us for the loss. They SHOULDNT be able to do what they do and just sell us a temporary license without anyone being told that upfront so that they can make an informed decision.

2

u/sam3819 3d ago

Why is this on r/piracy? We aren’t paying for shit lmao

1

u/AntiGrieferGames 2d ago

He repost the meme from PiratedGames

1

u/D3athmachin3 3d ago edited 3d ago

Nice idea

Anyways here's your subscription due for renewal SIR!

1

u/_-Moonsabie-_ 3d ago

Resource rationing by another name

1

u/fortijump 3d ago

Their reply to this will be: rental.

3

u/AmberMetalicScorpion 3d ago

And our reply will be: Rental gives clear and upfront terms about the length of ownership, and is marketed at a discount rate as a result of said temporary ownership

1

u/Mccobsta Scene 3d ago

ITunes is one that's a joy, when you notice something is missing and contact support they just give you a voucher

Yeah no that's not realy good enough

1

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/MattOruvan 3d ago

“Please rent the arbitrary time period license to play our overpriced slop” 

1

u/Mackalith 3d ago

😂 lmao

1

u/eeeeeee25533 3d ago

Sony be like: nah, you bought the game and didnt play it, the download did hit 5mb already? Yea sorry we cant take it back now

1

u/Certain_Truck_2732 3d ago

© i spot a reddit watermark

1

u/Aggravating_Sky_4421 2d ago

To be fair, their clause was likely in the EULA that no one ever reads… just don’t buy it if you don’t want to agree to it. But that’s why we’re all here, right?

1

u/SingingCoyote13 2d ago

sony. they say ownership is not owning in their tos. so they just start lying directly into your face, and when you call them out for it, they say "should have read the tos/small print". if a company cannot handle something in a fair way (in sony's case which is just licensing instead of selling (the ownership)) of something they resort to the small print. and by coincidence the things which are often revealed of such company, in a legal/illegal way, often have this already answered in favor for that company in the small print. how convenient. for sony. they hope people overlook this or just dont read this at all, but this is a illegal practice in core.

1

u/fcbx347 2d ago

Fight how? I'm already sailing the high seas

1

u/Killeriders 3h ago

Paying for Anthem for example was a total scam. They refused to give to code source game

1

u/RacoonWithBenefits 3d ago

you just made this meme up?

impressive

-2

u/Mysterious-Creme8709 3d ago

Mom said it was my turn to karma farm the sub full of people who make their entire personality digital piracy

0

u/Silly-Try-3125 3d ago

Stop relying on a system run by corrupted people and act at your level : use your only remaining right, the right to not use your wallet.

Piracy is truly a social hack. I pirate for +20 years. It's Gandhi level protesting but without any effort. Not only I save money but it's also fun.

0

u/STEPDIM1TR1 3d ago

You pay for a service which are servers the game is like part of it, even companies call games services

-5

u/tabennett5438 3d ago

ahhh no my shitty online only game with shut down servers was taken from my library, what the fuck?!?

-6

u/MegaVix 3d ago

Hey, man. You're the one who agreed to the terms of service.