Pebblebrook
-
Posts
398 -
Joined
-
Quote:Don't suppose you can break that down a bit with more detail...or equate that to a monthly cost figure would be easier to relate to.Originally Posted by Arcanaville
A million dollars would probably have bought you about one major Issue. -
Quote:Heh, out a few days and interesting news happens...i need to be out more often. I know the thread has veered off a bit and this response is out of step from the current line of discussion but it's part of the OP so i think it's ok to revisit.Originally Posted by Talionis
...Positron takes the time to tell us that CoH is the largest MMO ever killed. Take that air in a second... Positron, who is in the industry, says that CoH is the most healthy MMO ever killed.
Not sure if Positron meant it that way or not but the way you paraphrased it, might be altering the meaning a bit.
Largest playerbase among the defunct MMOs is not quite the same connotation as "most healthy mmo" although it's close. I suppose prior to CoX, SWG may have been considered to be the largest mmo among the shuttered ones at the time...or close to TR. Not sure, TR as Gangrel guessed could be about 37k subscribers but SWG is not known. Sony doesn't itemize their game revenue in their reports that i saw.
---
On another note, that interview brought up something not mentioned in the thread yet but could be another hint for us about their cost.
Their discussion turned to kickstarters in general, but then later Positron commented this:
Not much of a hint to their cost since it doesn't mention how long the period would be or how many people can be supported with that minimal figure of $500k, also not sure how minimal that is.Quote:118:53 If paragon studios have a crazy kickstarter, we're talking like half a million at least!
119:19 That would be enough to..ah...to continue development for a certain period of time...ah...and, hopefully to attract some angel investors, attract some venture capital...ah, in there.
Could that mean that somewhere between $500 - $1 mil would be what's needed to run Paragon for at least 1 month with most if not all of the 80 staff they had?
Any number crunchers around? -
Quote:Those situations are different in that the company hadn't already anticipated losing all those customers.Originally Posted by Bad_Influence
So..... BoA and Netflix pulling anti-customer stunts DID NOT result in huge outrage and the loss of a lot of cash for them?
And i think the over 2 million netflix users estimated to cancel their subs had more to do with netflix's reversal. -
Quote:By directing the WoW game client to the scapegaming servers, that bypasses the legitimate WoW account authentication servers, thereby circumventing their technological security measures.Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Blizzard's argument was that as part of the overall process access to copyright work in the client is protected by technological means to authenticate the validity of the client which the rogue servers essentially bypassed. A priori proof that the account authentication mechanism does not protect the protected works in the client is the obvious fact that any authentication information will allow the client to work if connected to a different server.
From page 19-20 : Count III Violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"), 17 U.S.C. 1201(A) and (B)
That's what i'm getting from the docs...maybe point me to the portion that says it's something else. It's freaking long so maybe i zoned passed it. Happens more often than i would like unfortunately.Code:123. Defendants' actions constitue direct circumvention of a technological measure that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work in violation of 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(A). 124. Defendants, through their facilitation of permitting pirated copies of the WoW client to connect to the scapegaming servers, are aiding and abetting scapegaming users violations of 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(A). 125. Defendants are offering to the public, providing or otherwise trafficking in technology in violation of 17 U.S.C. 1204(a)(2) and (b). 126 The scapegaming server is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work and that protects the exclusive rights of copyright owners.
-
Quote:The case was won by a request for default judgement by the court when the defendant failed to appear within the deadline and was subsequently approved.Originally Posted by Starsman
If I understand the case correctly, that's the summary of what they sued over, but the way they won was by proving the hackers broke copy protection systems built into the game.
But there were several charges stated in the Blizzard complaint among which, the anti-piracy circumvention was one.
Count 1: Copyright infringement
Count 2: Contributory and Vicarious Copyright Infringement
Count 3: Violation of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA)
Count 4: Breach of WoW EULA
Count 5: Breach of WoW Terms Of Use (TOU)
Count 6: Unfair competition under California Law
Count 7: Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations
I don't have a text version i can copy/paste so have to just type some portions relevant to your question. The whole thing is too wordy for me to type so just peruse the doc i linked.
The following looks to be their description of their copy protection system...which sounds like buying a serial code (box or others), activating an account and creating a player userid:
From page 9-10: Blizzard's Anti-Piracy Mechanism
This portion has reference to Scapegaming going around that anti-piracy system:Code:47. When the WoW client is launched, a copy of the program is loaded into the user's computer's random access memory. 48. Blizzard only authorizes users to copy WoW into random access memory in conformity with the terms of its EULA and TOU. 49. When users first attempt to launch the WoW game client, authenticate to the WoW game server, and access the copyrighted elements of the WoW gaming environment, they must demonstrate that they seek to run an authorized copy of the game client. 50. Each authorized user is issued a unique 26-digit alphanumeric authentication code (the "Authentication Code") upon purchase of a license to play WoW. Prior to playing the game, users must create an account via a separate interface that requires them to enter their Authentication Code. Once the Authentication Code has been validated, the user must create a unique account username and password. Each Authentication Code can only be used to create one account, and the Authentication code is tied to that account after the account has been created. 51. When the user runs the game client software, the game client displays a login screen in which the user must enter his or her unique account username and password. The client then sends information, including information derived from the username and password, to the server. If this information passes certain authentication tests, the server allows the game client to enter the WoW gaming environment and access the copyrighted material resident on the server, as well as opening access to the copyrighted material on the game client. 52. As such, access to the copyrighted content on the game client is predicated on access to the authorized WoW server. In this way, the server "unlocks" the copyrighted information on the game client.
From page 13: Defendants' Unlawful Activities
There's more stuff about Scapegaming performing reverse engineering and such but i'm not going to type the whole thing hehe.Code:71. On information and belief, unlike the authentic WoW game servers, the scapegaming server does not even attempt to determine whether a game client connecting to it is legitimate. Instead, the scapegaming server, as designed, allows unauthorized versions of the game client to enter the WoW online world and access the copyrighted content residing on the game client. 72. In addition, the Scapegaming server allows any user to create an account without first submitting an Authentication Code. 73. The Scapegaming server thus allows users to bypass the anti-piracy checks Blizzard has implemented that otherwise take place before the game client may proceed to enter the WoW gaming environment.
-
Quote:Pretty much...maybe i'm still having problems with wording replies.Originally Posted by Arcanaville
So even if accepting the EULA counts as a "signature" for the purposes of Title 17, there's no transfer being requested.
If anything, it prevents any transfer of NCSoft's rights over to the user when using their software more than trying to take away the user's rights but i suppose it could be viewed that way. -
I thought the defendent failed to appear and the court ruled for default judgement in favor of Blizzard.
Let me check that again. -
Quote:Sorry for late response...i somehow glossed over this for some reason.Originally Posted by Arcanaville
The statement implies that the judgment was primarily based on 17.12, 1201: "Circumvention of copyright protection systems." The WoW private server actively bypassed copy protection systems built into WoW to prevent WoW clients from running on unauthorized servers.
City of Heroes has no such protections to break.
The part about circumvention was the authentication (account verification) system which all subscription games have including CoX.
Link
The Blizzard complaint goes into more detail on their authentication process and i'm sure NCSoft has something similar.Quote:Blizzard sued, arguing that Scapegaming’s bypassing of Blizzard’s subscription and authentication mechanisms violated the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provisions.
But again, Blizzard went after them because WoW is still running and the emulator service was damaging that business. I'm not sure how much incentive there would be to go after emulators to a defunct game as this soon will be. -
Quote:I'm not really talking about a player recreating a copyrighted character owned by that player to use in-game. That's against the EULA to use copyrighted characters anyway. Thinking mostly of someone using NCSoft assets to create a new character after they acknowledge EULA establishes that IP rights are not transferred from NCSoft to the user.Originally Posted by Starsman
A copyright claim like this will likely be tossed out the court automatically (one that attempted to claim ownership of some one's IP just based on an ELUA.)
I might be seeing it differently but i keep seeing as players don't get rights to NCSoft's assets just because they use it.
Either way, it does sound like a good case to see unfold. -
Quote:Maybe it'll help if you link the specific passage you're referring to.Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Let me put it this way. US Copyright law forbids me from transferring my copyright rights through an EULA even if I want it to.
The one i keep finding does mention transfers of copyright ownership is valid only if it's in writing and signed...which can be argued that it's in writing (eula) and signed (click).
Sounds like that could be an interesting court case to watch.
EDIT: Of course i'm not talking about a previously copyrighted character that the owner decide to recreate in-game since that violates the EULA anyway.
Either way, unless there is a big payout of some kind, i doubt NCSoft will bother. -
Quote:I didn't say it was. I mentioned it since that adds to incentive for pursuing litigation to cite damages.Originally Posted by Arcanaville
The for-profit element had nothing to do with the actual legal grounds for judgment.
Heh, like i said in what you quoted...i didn't say you couldn't contest it.Quote:Originally Posted by Arcanaville
In other words, even if the EULA was theoretically enforceable in the matter of authorship rights, it would *still* be overridden by Copyright law which explicitly covers this situation.
But there are precedents of enforcing clickwrap agreements. I'm having trouble looking for cases specifically for character creation but not much luck. All i keep seeing is referencing user generated content or Second Life, but that might be a bad example since i think they allow users to retain ip rights somewhat...unlike many mmorpg EULAs.
I did see this blurb though that mentions a case that could be used for precedent but can't find the original court docs...maybe since it's in Korea.
Maybe someone can help dig that court doc up...that blurb doesn't give much detail.Quote:A recent judgment by the Seoul District Court (judgment No. 2002-kahap-2377) upheld the rights of MMORPG developers and publishers, ruling that copyrights to the computer program, characters, items and screen images, enabling and constituting a game, belong to their developer. -
Quote:Full disclosure...i sort of already switched ships shortly after Freedom. I'm just looking at this as, like always, possible opportunities to gain information.Originally Posted by Rubberlad
I love that you guys are spending your final hours on the Titanic arguing if liability for damaged luggage is covered by the shipping company's insurance policy or the customers...
I already got a lot more links added to my collection.
-
Quote:I wasn't suggesting you can't contest it, just that it's there and allows them to take action.Originally Posted by Codewalker
If you really could sign away IP by clicking a button, then there would be no need for the lines AFTER that part:
And clickwrap agreements are getting traction as far as being enforceable.
Link
Quote:Click-wrap agreements are a fairly new form of contract, giving courts relatively few opportunities to examine them thus far. Most of the cases looking at these agreements have held that a properly completed click-wrap agreement is a binding contract, though in a few instances courts have refused to enforce them. While there are other potential barriers to enforcing Apple’s unusual Safari EULA, the two most common ways of invalidating click-wrap agreements are contract formation defects and unconscionability.
Courts usually key in on two potential problems when examining the formation of a click-wrap agreement: (1) whether the customer had reasonable notice of the terms and (2) whether that customer actively agreed to those terms. For notice, a court is satisfied if the customer had the opportunity to look over the terms of the agreement — even if he didn’t bother to read them. -
Quote:Actually, i think it's the other way around...they give you the right to use but do not relinquish ownership of any content associated with the IP in Section 6 of the EULAOriginally Posted by Ironblade
NCSoft's EULA gives them the right to USE the characters you created, but they do not take ownership away from you.
They also defined content as anything related to the game that isn't software or service and software being software provided by NCSoft including those installed on your computer.Quote:6. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
(a) You acknowledge, and further agree, that You have no IP right related to any Service, Content, Software, or any combination of the foregoing or parts thereof except the limited license provided in Section 2 above.
(b) You acknowledge, and further agree, that You have no IP right related to any Account ID, any NCsoft Message Board ID, any communication or information on any NCsoft Message Board provided by You or anyone else, any information, feedback or communication related to the Game, any Character ID or characteristics related to a Character ID, any combination of the foregoing or parts thereof, or any combination of the foregoing with any Service, Content, Software, or parts thereof. To the extent You may claim any such IP right(s), You hereby grant NCsoft a worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, sub-licensable, perpetual and irrevocable license and full authorization to exercise all rights of any kind or nature associated with such IP right(s), and all ancillary and subsidiary rights thereto, in any languages and media now known or not currently known.
I guess Character ID is the name of your characters also.
I think they also give themselves a provision to go after anything that exports those content like copying costumes to a third party. Whether or not they do anything about that is up to them. They probably won't.
There's also something about emulating the software in section 7...section 2 has something about agreeing not to reverse engineer. -
Heh, i may be having a bad writing day with not properly wording replies.
I was describing the differences between that case and what's happening here, with CoX that will soon to be no longer be running and NCSoft not having as large a coffer as Blizzard and if the people involved small enough, may result in NCSoft not bothering with them.
It wasn't meant as a how-to instruction for skirting the law. -
Quote:Can't really comment on the legalities of server emulators but there might be a precedent when Blizzard won $88mil with their case against an emulator operator that they could possibly use.Originally Posted by TonyV
Can someone please point me to where developing an emulator is illegal?
....
If an emulator is released and NCsoft decides in its insanity that it has somehow suffered financial damage from it, they are free to file a civil lawsuit against whomever does it and to try to recoup those losses by trying to convince a judge and/or jury that the $0 they would have made is greater than the $0 they're making with an emulator being out there.
Although in that case, it was a for-profit emulator service hosting a large playerbase of 32k and the main legitimate game is still operational...and well, it's Blizzard and they have a ton of cash for legal fees.Quote:A statement from Blizzard on its victory read: Our ultimate goal is to create the best games in the world, and that means we need to protect our games and safeguard our players experiences with them. Server emulators that use Blizzards IP facilitate piracy and offer unauthorized, inconsistent gaming experiences that can damage Blizzards reputation and goodwill with players. We take these types of threats very seriously and will continue to take every available measure to protect our rights globally.
So if SaveCoH avoids some of those, maybe NCSoft won't bother pursuing legal action. -
Quote:I guess i really didn't word it properly then. Maybe a recap would help.Originally Posted by Captain-Electric
Which is an entirely different discussion. You keep talking about the odds of making an impact. In the OP, when Cap hung up the phone inside that phone booth (IN FAULTLINE
), he wasn't leaving to go fight NCSoft. He was leaving NCSoft behind, period.
My first post here was commenting on the article you linked in your OP. Since it's there, that opens it up for discussion.
Then when you replied to me, you mentioned this:
Which opens up the topic of gaming sites/gamer word-of-mouth in relation to perceived impropriety of gaming companies which led me to exploring how such things using previously similar examples with AA, SWG, and TR impacted those companies' behavior years later.Quote:Originally Posted by Captain-Electric
Gaming media have been stonewalled from the starting line. Even the most forgiving gamers don't take that sort of thing very well, and will pass the knowledge of this event, and of NCSoft's handling of it, on to their friends for many years to come. Gamers who write for the gaming media will use NCSoft's handling of this situation anecdotally for years. Flow charts and related arguments are immaterial. The real conversation has always been about the way this went down.
I know discussions evolve over time but i don't think i've strayed too much. If i have strayed far...well, i was just following you.
-
Quote:Hmm, i didn't think my reply was arguing with you...maybe i didn't word it properly. It was sort of a lead in to describing the impact of disgruntled players of past games on the industry/companies today.Originally Posted by Captain-Electric
You're painting me as someone who's planning to make them sorry, somehow.
As for painting you as someone on a vengeful mission against NCSoft, well i think statements from you like the following does that to some extent.
Quote:Originally Posted by Captain-Electric
I'm still calling them doodooheads. And I'm going to tell friends why I think they're doodooheads. And I'm pretty sure some gaming media will continue to pass it around, too. -
Quote:Well not sure if expecting a business who's view is one of looking out for their overall company's interests and to be sorry for it, is all that realistic.Originally Posted by Captain-Electric
Gaming media have been stonewalled from the starting line. Even the most forgiving gamers don't take that sort of thing very well, and will pass the knowledge of this event, and of NCSoft's handling of it, on to their friends for many years to come. Gamers who write for the gaming media will use NCSoft's handling of this situation anecdotally for years. Flow charts and related arguments are immaterial. The real conversation has always been about the way this went down.
And using the situation anecdotally in future conversations may not be as damaging as you might expect once the fervor fades away. Auto Assault and SWG had save the game campaigns also and is still known by many gamers but the gaming world still progresses as usual.
The closing of Tabula Rasa even had a legal scandal associated with it and it doesn't seem to phase the overall gaming public that number in the millions since the smaller group comprised of mere thousands that were directly affected was overshadowed by them.
And i'm not sure how credible people would view many of those anecdotes anyway since over time, people misremember them. I mean, people use anecdotes like the shuttering of SWG was because of LucasArts favored SWTOR over them and that's not true, or the forgery letter by Garriot which is technically not true.
When people misremember facts they use to press forward their agenda, they lose credibility and thereby losing some of the punch they wanted to achieve and may not be taken seriously as a consequence. -
Quote:Mainstream media researching into this situation may tell a different story but it might not be what SaveCoH wants.Originally Posted by jwbullfrog
Well that is true enough EL but, if this does get to the mainstream press, they will want to do some research and they'll go to the internet and 'lo and behold' there will be all this information out there already telling a different story.
So far many of the movement's arguments for saving seems to be based on rumors, hearsay, 2nd-hand or misleading information and inaccurate representation of finances.
There's also some suggestions, think it was Mercedes Lackey, to see if they can use a scientific angle via anecdotal evidence from their other posters that CoH can help in therapy of autism and other ailments as reason to save the game.
And the writer of that article mentions Felicia Day and Neil Gaiman are in support of SaveCoH but i've only seen a retweet from Gaiman by request of SaveCoH and another tweet from Felicia mentioning some gamers trying to save their game makes her tear up.
I suppose that can be considered supporting but in the faintest sense i guess.
But maybe before hitting the mainstream, maybe that EGM article should try and hit their own site's Top 10 stories of the day first. -
Quote:When trying to guesstimate subscriber numbers, you use money coming in from customers (revenue) which are stated on the quarterly reports...those never mention CoX's profits but you wouldn't use profit anyway for this.Originally Posted by Tyger42
Are those figures the raw income or the profit? Generally when a company talks about their revenue, it's after operating expenses...
And can't state it enough that the subscriber range are very rough estimates since there's lots of variables that would affect it. -
Quote:Getting subscriber numbers is a bit murky since most don't give that out but one can get a "ballpark" guesstimate from revenues.Originally Posted by Tyger42
A subscriber base that never dropped below 100k subscribers before it went free to play isn't a "small..declining group of players" by a long shot. Unless you're comparing everything to WoW numbers.
With a 100k subscribers, one can expect (very roughly) that there would be around $3.6 million in revenues (assuming all players on $12/mo - yearly plan...unlikely) to maybe $4.5 million ($15/mo - monthly plan).
With that in mind, the last time CoX's actual revenue came close to $3.6 mil was back in 2Q-3Q 2009. Exception to 3Q 2010 $4.8mil mainly because that number is skewed by GR sales.
Immediately after Freedom's sales spike, CoX revenue in 1Q 2012 was $2.6 million. Which might place VIP numbers somewhere in the vicinity of 58k - 72k subscribers *.
* Of course also using the assumption 100% of revenues is only from subscriptions which is unlikely even before F2P, so it's likely to be less than that.
Personally, i would lean towards the lower end range subs. -
Quote:Originally Posted by Starsman
MMOs? Only MMOs they have canceled that I am aware off have been:
EverQuest Online adventure (A PS2 game they had no way to keep supporting.)
Star Wars Galaxies (shut down was decided by Lucas Arts in hopes that those players would move to TOR)
And Matrix Online.
Matrix Online is the only one they canceled due to low subscription numbers, and that’s an excuse they had from the day they acquired the IP 5 years earlier when the original owner studio was closed.
They have other games they canceled, but these are not MMOs (Tanarus, Cosmic Rift and Star Chamber.) These other 3 were only "freebies" they tossed as bonuses for subscribers of their All Access plan. Despite their nature they lived enjoyed between 9 and 13 years lifespans.
Actually Cosmic Rift is defined as an MMO, but if you want to limit the other titles, then you also have to discount from NCSoft's list Exteel since that's a shooter...also leave out point blank and dragonica since those are still running, just not in all the regions it used to run.
That leaves 4 for NCSoft and 3 for Sony.
And SWG was not shut down "by" Lucas Arts. It was shut down by John Smedley (Sony) because he thought it would have difficulties once SWTOR is released.
Yes, their license agreements were expiring but because of various factors among which was the SWTOR launch and other things, Smedley decided to let the license contract lapse.
And much like CoX, SWG still had a small loyal fanbase that were outraged by the closure and held a campaign to save it.
Quote:"It was time to turn it off. We have a contractual relationship that's ending in 2012, The Old Republic launching, a bunch of other business things with LucasArts," Smedley said. "And then you look at the odds of a pretty large portion of the audience moving to TOR, which looks like a terrific game. I think that's going to be really well-received by the population." You can't deny Smedley's business sense there. -
Quote:Other publishers have cancelled many titles before, but probably not ones you would care about. Sony i think cancelled 5 that i know of, but only 1 (SWG) was something i would prefer to have kept going.Originally Posted by Gangrel_EU
BTW, not only is NCSoft the only one to cancel that many MMOs, it's also the only one that comes to mind that kills a profitable MMO that is in the middle of heavy development.
-
Quote:I'm of the opinion that NCSoft announced the result of negotiations, probably mostly because a redname blurted out that there were negotiations happening rather than appearing nice.Originally Posted by Fluorescent
I mean did they even have to explain to us that they we're looking for someone to sell the game to? They reason they told us they "exhausted all possibilities" was because of the PR hit that they took and they just wanted to make themselves look good.
If no one mentioned negotiations, we probably wouldn't hear about it till much later when one of the parties involved talks in an interview.
Not sure, when Auto Assault had negotiations to sell that IP, was that leaked during the negotations? I only saw mention of it on an interview much later after the fact.