Video Gamers Podcast - Game Over or Game On? The Ethics of Shutting Down Live Service Titles (GAME COURT) – Gaming Podcast

Episode Date: July 17, 2025

Gaming hosts Josh, Ryan, and John are stepping into the courtroom in this week's episode. Tackling one of the most controversial cases in video games today. Should companies be forced to keep live service games running even when they’re losing money—or do studios have every right to pull the plug? We're diving into the arguments on both sides of this real-world legal battle that could reshape the future of gaming as we know it. From passionate players demanding long-term support to publishers citing unsustainable costs, we break down what’s fair, what’s feasible, and what this all means for the future of live service video games. Whether you're on Team Keep It Running or Team Shut It Down, this gaming debate is heating up. Don’t miss this thought-provoking episode of the Video Gamers Podcast!   Thanks to our MYTHIC Supporters: Redletter, Disratory, Ol’ Jake, Gaius, and Phelps   Thanks to our Legendary Supporters: HypnoticPyro, Patrick, Jigglepuf and PeopleWonder   Connect with the show: Support us on Patreon: patreon.com/videogamerspod Join our Gaming Community: https://discord.com/invite/Dsx2rgEEbz Follow us on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/videogamerspod/  Follow us on X: https://twitter.com/VideoGamersPod  Subscribe to us on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VideoGamersPod?sub_confirmation=1    Visit us on the web:https://videogamerspod.com/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Woo, woo, woo! Stop. Do you know how fast you were going? I'm gonna have to write you a ticket to my new movie, The Naked Gun. Liam Neeson. Buy your tickets now and get a free chili dog. Chili dog not included. The Naked Gun.

Tickets on sale now. August 1st. No Frills delivers. Get groceries delivered to your door from No Frills with PC Express. Shop online and get $15 in PC Optimum Points on your first five orders. Shop now at NoFrills.ca. Hello fellow gamers and welcome to the Video Gamers Podcast. Live service games and AAA studios are always in the news and it's usually for the wrong reasons, but as gamers, live service games provide some of the most fun, engaging and approachable forms of gaming for many people.

On the flip side, as lifelong gamers, we tend to lament the invention of live service games and their impact on the gaming industry as a whole. Studios want that jackpot payday, but gamers want innovation, passion, and a focus on fun. Today we're taking it to court and arguing over whether studios that develop live service games should be required to support them even if they flop. It's going to be a battle for the ages, but before we get to it, some introductions are in order. I am your host Josh and joining me, he'll be the judge for today's events, holding the

fate of the gaming industry and his calloused working man hands. It's Ryan. I get all the power. Yeah, that is way too much power for one man. Oh, I love it. And joining us my friend in podcasting, but my mortal enemy in this draft is John. I gotta tell you, we've done a few of these now, and the research element of this one was actually some of the most enjoyable research I've done. I'm looking forward to crossing swords with you here, sir. Oh, Josh, he researched.

I'm over here in shock. Wait a minute, you did research? Oh, yeah. For anybody listening, you did research? Oh yeah. Oh my gosh. For anybody listening, there's probably a slant that you would predict John would take in this argument. And I think maybe he'll be surprised. Oh, all right.

I'm surprised because now I feel drastically unprepared because I did zero research, guys. I fly off the seat of my pants in these things and now I'm really worried John's going to make some like really logical arguments and stuff. Would you have anything less sir? I mean I thought we were just, I didn't know we were supposed to research. I didn't get that memo. Well I had to and not to bury the lead here, but I had to. So Josh and I, you know, we agreed

that this would be a fun topic to talk about. And typically I take the corporate stance on these things. I typically take the company's standpoint and Josh and I thought it would be interesting to sort of flip the script here a bit. And so I am having to take the side against corporate America, which is not something I typically do. And the research proved to be very enlightening. I love it.

I will say this. We are swapping arguments. You know, when we came up with this topic, live service stuff's been all over the news. You you know gamers, you know, we're seeing so many live service games fail But when they hit they hit massively there has been a lot of pushback from the gaming community. We kind of said Hey, what's our natural take on this? I went well, I'm not really for live service gaming I don't know that this is good for the industry John you went I can understand the corporate mindset on this with my background in the corporate world. I actually can understand some of these decisions. And so naturally we went, yeah, we're not gonna do that.

Let's mix it up, man. So today I am arguing for live service gaming, being able to just abandon a game if it doesn't work out and move on to the next one. And John is arguing for, uh, you know, live service gaming being required to continue to support and develop these games because that's the promise you made to gamers and darn your profit lines and margins and profit and loss statements and all that stuff that John knows way more about than the rest of us. So, it is absolutely a little bit of a role reversal in this case.

I don't like it. I feel very out of place where normally I'm like, oh, I'm so ready for this, man. I'm so ready to just argue that. And then now I'm like, dang it, I feel gross and dirty. And it was just a little eye opening, man. And then now I'm like, dang it, I feel gross and dirty. And it was, it was a little eye-opening, man. Like making the case for something that you don't necessarily believe in really does kind of make you go,

you know, at least I can understand it from the other side of things. And that's honestly something we could all get a little bit better at. Even if you don't agree with something, understanding the other side of things is always a good thing in our opinion. So Ryan, you're the judge today. You are going to decide who made the better arguments. Ryan has

sworn in before recording that he will be fair and impartial and his presuppositions about live service gaming will not matter in his judgment at all, which none of us believe. Ryan's gonna judge how he's gonna judge. I am totally gonna just... No bias, nothing, you know. It's gonna be straight edge. And this is why everybody that is not watching these episodes should be watching these episodes, man, because we are video we are on YouTube We have video on Spotify, and if you missed out on Ryan's little subtle Indications there well you missed out so watch the video people Alright, John. Let's get to this man

All right, so just to just to clarify just to set the ground rules We are arguing over that the point isn't just live service gaming in general, right? We are arguing over should a live should a developer that develops a live service game be required To continue to support that game. Even if the sales flop The premise behind this is is that hey? You're you're releasing this game under the premise that you will continue to support it for however long, and you sold it to me under that premise, and I bought it, and then you abandoned it six months later because it flopped like Concord

did and nobody's playing it and you don't want to lose a ton of money. And so you sold me a product that you no longer support. So that is the argument. You're making my argument. Well, OK, I know I am. And so that is one side of the argument. The other side is that, hey, we developed this game. It is a live service game.

We were honest and upfront about that. As a company, obviously, our job is to make money. And if this game's flopping, there's no way we are going to be expected or required to continue support a game that has flopped and is not that nobody is playing at this point so those are the arguments John do you want to do you want to kind of open up with your thinking let me go you buddy we're gonna start off with just a summary of your thinking on this here or an opening statement as some might say so

Okay, so there are sort of like three major components that I want to touch on here and before I get into them, I want to acknowledge that as somebody who's owned a business I Strongly believe that every entity in the world whether it it is a corporate entity or a life entity, deserves the opportunity to compete for its survival within the legal confines that is able to do so. So there are three major things that I wanna talk about in my opening discussion here, is this concept of live service games, why they exist and what

it means to discontinue service. Number one, when a live service game is developed, it is not being developed as a product, but as an ongoing experience. And that is an acknowledgement that both the developer and the consumer are taking. It is not that I'm paying for a packaged complete product but the fact that is live service imputes an understanding that you are going to continue to evolve and support this product as my experience with it evolves as well. That is my expectation.

That is the social contract we've made. Number two is the fact that game designers, I think, are often using the terms of service or whatever the appropriate nomenclature is for this, but the contract, the actual thing that you have to acknowledge as a player of these games, as a right to discontinue service whenever it may be possible or necessary at the company level. And what I found and what I intend to demonstrate is that there are actually quite a bit of examples where the terms of service have been proven to be non-enforceable because of the way they are constructed or the way that they are buried in the fine print. And I think that that is very relevant to this because there is an understanding that these

terms of service have to be reasonably Reciprocal and reasonably well understood for both parties here and the third one is I think most to the point where we talk about does the developer need to support a game even if that support of the game poses an existential threat to the company and I believe and I can demonstrate that there are ways that support and or at least the core experience of a game can be preserved basically in perpetuity without hardship to the company that created it. And I would propose those as an alternative to sunsetting the game altogether.

Okay. Okay. All right. I like it, I like it. I disagree for this episode. What I wanna do, so here's the thing, man. I'm going to just approach the idea of live service games because a lot of times gamers go, ew, and I know Ryan's going, ew, you know?

And I'm trying to sway the judge on this one, okay? So here's what we need to think about, guys. I'm gonna talk about the idea and this distaste for live service games first, because I think we need to kind of set the stage a little bit. Gamers- We should set the stage by counting up

how many hours you've put into Marvel Rivals, sir. A lot, a lot, and thank you for making my point for me. Okay, so don't say ew if you're gonna say- No, I'm saying that's what most gamers do. And you are proving my point for me here, John. So thank you so much for that. So gamers want new games. We want innovation. We say it all the time on this show.

We want passion being put into the games that we play. We want fun. And while we can bemoan the impact of live service games, you can't deny the impact that live service gaming has. Without live service games, we would not have some of the greatest games of our generation. Fortnite, Counter-Strike, League of Legends,

Destiny, Genshin Impact, Roblox, Call of Duty. And while I get some people will roll their eyes at the names of these games, there are millions, millions of gamers in the world that escaped to those very games day in and day out because they provide ongoing entertainment, evolving worlds, expanding features, and more. These games rely on the quality of the gameplay and the worlds that they have to survive. All right. So in an industry that is driven by creativity and competition, if you tie a company's hands to an unprofitable venture, it's going to stifle that innovation that we all want as gamers.

It's going to drain resources from these companies that are developing these games that could be better spent trying their hand at something new and exciting so that gamers can have a game like Fortnite, Counter-Strike, Genshin Impact, Roblox and all these other games that millions and millions and millions of people play. So don't be swayed by the name live service game. Because I know that there's that initial impression and instead what I want is to take a minute to think about the reach that these games have. Think about the number of gamers that are impacted that are able to play these games. They appeal to a lot of people in the world and they give them moments of joy that they wouldn't

have otherwise. They give them experiences to share with their friends because most live service games are multiplayer, online, co-op, competitive, however you want to say it. They are approachable, they're accessible, and they are the go-to for millions and millions and millions of gamers so I want us to get rid of that preconception that we have when it comes to the term live service gaming. Very well said. All right gentlemen John I have a question for you sir. Shoot. With live service games what are the risks of a game becoming unplayable or obsolete with the live services shutting down?

Well, so again this kind of ties to the core of what I mentioned at the opening of my statement and frankly something that Josh Just reinforced right when I did not When when you when you the the the thing that makes these games so valuable is that the experiences? continue to evolve as you play them if you were to like introduce Marvel rivals in a brick state and say like this is the game and that's it or Call of Duty fortnight, whatever illegal legends any of these games. this is a package deal and we're not gonna support it. I would wager that inherently by that,

the replayability of those games sinks dramatically and the value of it sinks dramatically too. So in as short a way as I can put this, the risk that exists from a company ceasing to support these games to the consumer is that you remove its value altogether. And I want to say that I understand the counterpoint here where we say like, does a company need to continue to support these things even if it's stifling their financial accountability to do so?

So here is my primary point to this, right? When a game company develops a live service agreement, there is a social contract that exists between the game company and the consumer that says, hey, you will play our game. You will devote your valuable time to playing this product that we've curated for you and an exchange in this social content, uh, contract. We are going to continue to support this so that your time is well spent and that you continue to get a updated, refreshing experience with this for. You know, in, in perpetuity until we release the next one.

This is a social contract and on your side of the social contract gaming company, it is your prerogative to support and like any sort, any contract, if you fail to support your side of the contract, fall into debt it is your prerogative to figure out a way out of that debt and frankly in as black and white terms as I can put it if you fail to resolve that debt ultimately you have to declare bankruptcy now that seems really harsh in these terms but that is the reality of what we're talking about here. The contract needs to be reciprocal and as long as the gamer is playing the game, it is your responsibility to continue to support these games.

Or at a very minimum, you need to sunset them in a responsible way that allows the core experience to be continued to be played for interested parties in perpetuity. So- Big game, Josh, what's your opinion? I'm just going to address that the topic is whether a company should be required to continue to support these games, okay? Nowhere, nowhere on earth is it expected that if a movie is not good that they have to continue

to try to make the movie better. Are they forced to- Movies aren't live service. That's not the social contract. That is not the social contract. When you watch a movie, when you consume a movie, it is a packaged product put out into the world and it lives or dies by the sword You do not watch a movie under the social contract that if I stop liking this movie that you're going to alternate

Alter it and please I would love this. Trust me game of thrones I would absolutely love it if such a social contract existed, but it doesn't that is not what we are expecting There but but in a way we are because well, I'll use Marvel as an example. Marvel when it came out was fantastic, dude. And then it continued to just be this, Hey, we're forced. It Disney came along and said, man, we have to tap this money cow for as much money as we can possibly soak and ring out of it. And it doesn't matter about the IP. We're just going to focus on the money and when what happens. So because they were forced into making these Marvel movies, the quality of those

movies dipped over time. And now most people go, bro, Marvel is in a terrible spot. This has been ruined. And this is exactly the impact that happens when a company is forced to continue to support something that they don't have passion for anymore. And we see that in gaming. That's the problem is that you want to take the argument that, hey, you must

continue to support this game, even if this game is not appreciated by people. If this game sucks, you know what I mean? Then you must continue to support this game. And while I get that gamers would go, yeah, because this is the cons. This is the agreement that you made. My point is, is that that agreement would be absolutely devastating to the gaming industry, like we have seen it be devastating to Marvel. Marvel sucks now, man. And it sucks

because they were forced into just making movies. Guys, we can't abandon this. We can't leave. They are not forced into making those movies. Oh, they were forced into making these movies, man. This is the biggest cash cow. No, they are not. Nobody put a gun to their head and said, it's a cash cow. That is an opportunity, not a force. Yeah, but you see the absolute degradation. They are saying, hey iron iron man 2 was successful

Let's make my iron man 3 well, you know what iron man 3 suck You know what? There's a lot of people that did like there's a lot of people that did like iron man 3 They don't get to delete iron man 3 from existence because the majority of people didn't like it They should okay, whether they should or they shouldn't is irrelevant There are certain people out there who like the movie and the movie has been packaged and is released and people can consume it. You cannot say, hey, we lost money on this movie

or we're gonna delete it from existence so that even the people who did enjoy it, and frankly again, we're talking about two totally different things. Live service imputes a mutual agreement that I'm gonna continue to play and you're going to continue to produce. But that is the difference. But the agreement is, is when you accept those terms of service and you agree to the EU LA, you are saying, hey, I am agreeing.

I want to play your game, this game that you spent millions and millions and millions of dollars developing without a dime from anybody. you spent millions and millions and millions of dollars developing without a dime from anybody. I agree, I am entering in because my desire to play this game is so strong that I agree that if you deem that this game is not successful for you, that you are going to halt development on this game. Now, my point with the Marvel movie stuff is that while all gamers might go, yeah, you know,

they should be required to support these games. That thinking is dangerous because the impact that that would have on the gaming industry would be catastrophic, dude. And while we all, while we all want to see a company like Sony that made a flop like Concord, we all want to fist bump and go, yeah, sir. Is you right Sony for buying into this live service schlop. The problem is, is that if you enforce these companies to support a game that nobody is playing the ramifications from that are going to ripple through the gaming industry in a

way that no gamer wants. And that's the point that we're trying to make here is you well, okay, so but we're saying You're saying that that forced to Force to support games that nobody if nobody wanted support in these games It wouldn't matter if they sunset in them the the problem that we're experiencing is that even if these games are unprofitable There are some people who bought into this social contract who do enjoy them who do want them to can be supported or at least The 50 people there's people who like pineapple on pizza 50 people that wanted concord to continue to exist because they liked concord like

So is are we in a world where we cater to? 50 people when it can ruin the rest of the industry? We live in a world where yes you honor your contract with people if there are 50 people out there who loved it and 8 billion people who didn't you still signed up for a social contract with those 50 people who are still ingesting your project to at least continue to allow it to exist in the state that it does. And there are ways you can do that. There are ways you can do that that doesn't pose an existential hardship to the company. I want to address that.

Oh, go ahead. Let me make this one point because John wants to talk about this social contract. And a contract involves two parties. And when one of those parties signs that contract and says, hey, I agree that if you deem that this game isn't profitable and you stop development on it, that I'm not gonna get a refund

and that I agree that by playing this game, I am at the whim of the developer and the publisher and everything else, I signed that contract. We all signed that contract. And whether you like the results of that contract or not, we all, all agree to that contract. So the results of that contract or not, we all all agree to that contract So the idea that a contract should exist between two parties

You're making my point for me gamers are literally saying okay. I accept this I want to play this game my desire to play this game Overrides logic and reasoning. I'm willing to pay $80 or $100 for a premium edition so I can play this game two days before every other gamer in the world Like come on man. Not all gamers are smart. We're not arguing over the intelligence of gamers. I'm just as guilty, man I can't tell you how many games I've paid for the early access period cuz it's like bro I want to play this game on a Friday not on a Monday I get a whole weekend to play it. The contract is two people. Gamers

are agreeing to this. All right, Ryan, you had a question before John comes up with a good point. Hurry, Ryan. Hurry, Ryan. I'm about to stop this, guys. That was very well done, Josh. That was very well done. I did just have a quick question on the inherent risks within these projects. As a consumer, a lot of people would say that it is your risk that you're taking when you purchase something and be a live service or not, like if they are going to continue to update that.

Is it also equally so a risk for a company developing that game that are typically boom or bust, where you know that it is desirable for you to continue the updates and continue to maintain these games. If you don't like that, some would say, well then don't make that type of game. Well, what are your opinions on that? I mean, do you tell a painter not to paint with oil, you know,

and that he's got to use acrylic instead? Do you tell a sculptor that instead of doing art on statues that he should, you know, do paintings instead? I mean, some people have talents and these talents are, Hey, I can envision this world where this game is ongoing and continuing and we have new quests and features and things like that. If that's what they're good at. I mean, again, we've seen some of the biggest games in history are live service games, man. Look at the Steam top charts right now,

concurrent player count. I guarantee you every single one of those in the top five is a live service game, because this is what resonates with gamers. They're generally free to play. You have to rely on the quality of the game because if they're free to play, your game to rely on the quality of the game because if they're free to play The game you know it but if the game sucks nobody's gonna play it so guess what these games have to be entertaining because they'll

Be doomed to fail otherwise You know so I think there is absolutely risk involved there but the the gamers will vote with their wallets if no Marvel rivals if Nobody bought a skin in Marvel rivals, Marvel rivals would cease to exist in about a week, dude. If every person that plays that game was like, nope, I'm not buying the skin. I'm not buying this battle pass. That game by nature would flop, dude.

So gamers are literally the ones that are saying we like this. We support this. We want more of this because I'm giving you my hard earned money. And then the developers go, Okay, well, we'll keep giving you content. You keep giving us money. That's the contract that people are agreeing to. It may be an unsaid contract, but gamers vote with their wallets.

And in this case, gamers are saying, Hey, I want more of this. I'm giving you my money for you to give me more of it in return. Yeah. And I have to say that in principle, I agree with Josh's stance on this, right? Yes. Yes. Well, no. Money is not the purpose of business just like blood is not the purpose of life. What? But money is a requirement for business just as much as blood is a requirement for life. It must exist. However, the contract cannot be unilateral.

If a consumer is paying into or investing in this gaming experience the customers right is that they must be able to continue to enjoy this experience in at least the state that they bought into it and so the idea that we are sunsetting and or canceling games is What we would consider to be a unilateral contract, which there's legal precedent in support that those don't hold up in court.

There are actually four principles that I did some research in here, legal principles. I like this whole research thing by the way. Yeah, okay, so legal principle, illusory clauses. So if a game's terms of service lets the developer change or kill the game unilaterally Courts may find it invalid They did this with blockbuster lack of notice and consent if the terms are buried in fine print and not presented clearly Like in the case of Zappos, they may not bind users to this and there may be

What there may be grounds for what are called clawback lawsuits. Inconscionability, extremely one-sided clauses with no negotiation path can be struck down as in the case of Brad and then changes in notification courts expect notice evidence of claimed changes as in Zappos and Dropbox and also casual agreement does not equal enforceable contract. So in these cases what they found is that regardless of what fine print may exist in the contract if the general social agreement is that you are going to be creating a live service game which is a game that is just by name something that is expected to be at least preserved in a playable state in perpetuity then that must happen and again to Josh's point I

understand a company cannot continue if you if you have a wound You cannot continue to bleed in perpetuity or you will die. I understand that point but the irresponsible thing that game developers are doing is that they are removing the experience altogether that people have invested in which I believe presents a empirical breach of contract. And here's how you get around it. So, number one, phase one, is that the product goes into what we would call legacy mode. So, the developer removes monetization and makes all the assets available for free at that point. They keep servers up in a minimal frozen state as they are working on step two. So they mitigate the loss. Step two is that they create peer to peer or local

hosting patches. Objection, your honor. Too many points being made at once. I'll cut to the chase here. It is possible for patches to be created so that the in the few interested parties as an anthem Can continue to play by hosting these on local or land? servers which offloads the infrastructure from the developer and allows the however many people who did decide to play to continue to play in urban open in perpetuity and then they can Step three give open source or mod tools to the public as we've seen in lots of games that have

You know kind of become obsolete for one reason or another and just let people do their own support to it There are ways that these games can continue to exist in perpetuity while mitigating the business loss. And that is the approach. If you terminate a game that people have played into without giving them the opportunity to continue to experience this game, that constitutes a black and white breach of social contact for me and the company should be held responsible. I have a question for both of you. Your honor, if you would humor me in this case,

being a lifelong gamer, you can speak to this and John, you as well. If I created a game that looks fantastic and as you log into that game, I put up a splash screen because you talked about all of this blah blah blah stuff about these contracts being too difficult to read and stuff like that. If I put up a splash screen that simply said you as the gamer agree to play this game and understand that we may stop support for this game at any moment click here yes accept no I decline what is the number or let's what's the percentage

of gamers that you think are going to go ahead and click? Yes, I want to play this game Most yeah Far far more 90% 90 95 you want to play I think if people want to play the game They're gonna want to play the game So it doesn't matter how complicated the terms of service are if I put a screen that says gamer you Understand that we can stop support at this game at any moment 90 percent of gamers are still gonna be like let me in homie I want to try it out yeah yeah I would argue you're making my point for me because there's no the

social contract is that if you are producing a live service game by necessity or whatever that you're going to continue to honor your side of the agreement and I will continue to play the game If you don't like this live service game element, baby create better games change the public opinion You are willfully entering into the contract as are you as a gamer? I am saying I understand that I that you can stop support at this at any moment and I agree I'm totally with you developer, you know XYZ that you're gonna stop support on this game at any moment and I agree. I'm totally with you developer, you know, X, Y, Z, that you're gonna stop support on this game at any moment. Just let me in, baby.

I want the experience. The whole contract part is moot because these people are entering into it. And we all just said, no matter how simple this screen is that says you accept this, we all said, yeah, I'm gonna accept it. I wanna play the game, man You know that's on us the gamers wouldn't people say that that developers couldn't say that it's more of a one-sided

Contract where it is it is categorically unilateral and here's why if the game was entirely free to play if This was like public domain Entirely free to play there's no monetization on your part and all you're doing is hosting it and you're not getting any of my direct dollars from it, then dude, have at it. Have at it. You can do whatever you want. This is a hobby for you. You might get some ad revenue, but I, the consumer, I'm not paying you anything for it. But when you release a live service game and you charge for assets of that game, and then regardless of whatever splash plate page you've put in front of it,

you remove access to my assets that I paid for, you have violated a fundamental social contract and a point of sale that I believe you need to be held responsible for. You need to at a minimum make sure that I'm able to continue to pay to play with my assets that I have paid for. That is your responsibility. Now it's regarding those assets. I'm a little hazy on that subject there. Are those assets legally owned by the consumer within their I paid for him? Does that does that mean you actually it is though I yes absolutely it It is the digital the ability to brick it, but I paid for it

I well correct, but you you paid for a Piece of hardware on topic boys on topic So look I know we're running out of time on this. Here's the thing. Again, as gamers, yes, we do think that there should be some accountability. And I know live service games come with a certain amount of ick from gamers in general. But the thing is you have to take a step back. You have to go. We have to recognize the appeal that these games have to people. Gamers will vote with their wallets I'll use a non live service game recently mines. I came out looked good disaster

Disaster of a launch disaster of a game really really poor quality. What's the ramification there gamers are gonna go, bro? What's the terrible name of that studio? Build a Rocket Boy, right? Yeah, build a Rocket Boy studio. I will never trust you again. I will never buy another one of your products again. And that right there is the correction that is needed from gamers to go, nope, burn me once, shame on me,

burn me twice, shame on me. That's not right. You guys get it. But that's the point, right? So in a live service game, the, if it sucks, shame, shame. I'm not going to buy that game again. Gamers are going to vote with their wallets, you know? And so it's like, now the studio doesn't have good credibility and people aren't going to buy their games again in the future. But to want to regulate this continuation of

development is going to gut the industry. You're not going. I mean, imagine if we were stuck in Nintendo days because, hey, you know, certain Nintendo games flopped. We couldn't ever, you know, try to try something new. You know, all these new genres that we have now, we'd only be playing platformers and duck hunt because it's like, well, we don't have the means to... I like duck hunt. I do like duck hunt.

We don't have the means to try new things because if we try new things, we're gonna be on the hook for it. And if we're on the hook for it, it doesn't work out, we're stuck. So there goes all innovation, there goes all passion. Developers would only make the safest, most bland Dragon Age Veil Guard games

that you could ever imagine because, hey, somewhere some people might think that this game is okay. You would murder the industry, man. And while it's like, yes, everybody wants that jackpot, the ramifications would be disastrous. And so the idea is a good idea from a gamer's mind, but the actual implementation of that would be catastrophic. So are we considering this our closing argument? Yeah, if you guys can get your closing statements in.

Okay, so I hear and understand what your point is on this, Josh. And again, I have a remarkable bit of empathy for this. Like I know a lot of business owners and it's tough. And I know that it sucks to release, to put a lot of time into a product and have people not receive it well. But there are some people who like these games.

Even if they're in the minority, their purchase agreement with you is not invalid. And you need to honor your side of the agreement. These gamers are not just users They were talking about paying customers They paid for a service and when developers shut down these live service titles without meaningful recourse or compensation Especially if what we're talking about is the terms of service being buried and you know there's there's legal and ethical grounds that those could be challenged.

But if if people are paying for a part of this service, it is the company's prerogative to either continue to support it or to give users the means to continue to get what they paid for and support it themselves the law is evolving and the standards for digital game ownership and preservation should as well and frankly if this proposes some sort of asymmetric risk to gaming companies where live service will kill or, you know, it's a feast or famine sort of situation, then it's up to the gaming industry to step it up

and figure out something that is more solvent and sustainable without risking the contracts with their paying customers. All right, Ryan. This falls, we've made our right, Ryan. This falls. We've made our arguments, buddy. You have. It definitely gave me a lot to think about here.

You both made some very, very good statements and some solid points on this. As a lifelong gamer, as myself, I have compassion for gamers. When you purchase a game, you play it, you spend money on skins, you you know, invest this time and then they're just gonna shut it down and take it all away from you. Equally so I feel for companies to where hey this isn't working out like we thought, you know, we're gonna have to pull the plug on this to save the company and hopefully come up with something better. Having said that, I do think and this is what I asked earlier about the ability to actually own these,

and I looked something up real quick, so in a strict legal sense, consumers in a game like Fortnite do not actually own the skins. They purchase instead what you would call a limited liability, like lease, to, to utilize these skins within the game. As well as, you know, the ability to continue to play, you don't, you don't have those assets are not yours. They're not your own belongings. So having said that I will have to rule in favor of the companies not being required to continue to update their live service games. Boo! What? Boo!

You consumers, as well as the companies, both enter into a contract to where they both can pull out at any time. It is not the responsibility of a company to maintain a sinking ship just for a few people there. So I am going to rule in favor of Josh Oh okay now that that's an official ruling I feel so gross I can tell that was so hard for both of you guys

Get it off me! Get it off me! Oh man, I just kept wanting to make John's arguments for him Honestly though you know what guys like I honestly do side with with your arguments on this, Josh. I don't I don't think like how can you force a company to keep keep, you know, maintaining this? Well, hang on, right? So like I want to make sure that you're understanding the core of my counterargument. I mean like I'll respect the- Ruling's been made. Yeah, that's fine. That's why Josh Josh you win full stop. It's been made. It's been made, it's official.

Josh, Josh, you win full stop. But I just want to make sure, because like, I agree with that. A company shouldn't have to keep supporting something that's killing them. If you get cut and you continue to bleed, you die. And that sucks. I disagree.

I disagree. I don't think any company should be compelled to die because they created something unsuccessful. That being said, it takes very little resources to go, you know what guys, we released this thing and it's a flop. It's a flop, but there are some people who are gonna be upset that have paid into this game that if we kill this, they're gonna be upset.

So what do we do? Okay, well, open source it. Let them continue to open source it, let them continue to support it themselves. They can do whatever they want with it and give them a patch so that they can support, so that they can host it locally. Then there's no risk to me as a company. There's it could be supported until the end of time with no risk to me. That is, that is the primary point where I'm looking to make

I don't think a company should be compelled to die because they created a product that is unpopular But they do have a requirement to uphold their Contract with the people who did enjoy it and allow them to continue it to enjoy the product Where's I think is it where's the line though? Where do you draw the line? What if it's 10 people? And it's going to cost you three programmers and server space and a lot of funds to... I don't... I think creating...

Even if you can't create the patch yourself, you can release the assets publicly, which costs nothing and say, hey, develop your own patch and you can do this locally. Isn't this what they did with Toontown, Josh? Yeah, they open-sourced it. Because that's how we were able to still play it. Legitimately, that's the solution. When John started to talk about that, I didn't want to acknowledge it at all,

but that is 100%. If this game's flopping and it's costing you money, then I know everybody's super protective of their IP and it's like, oh, well, we developed this, it's ours, but it's like, but bro, you develop something that sucks. Like give it to the world for the 50 people out there that want to play it. Give it to them. Yeah.

I will say it like my, my bias towards this obviously was towards the company. But as I was doing the research on this, my, my opinion changed. Like I, I re-informed myself. I was honestly like, how the heck am I going to argue with Josh on this? Man. I will say my opinion changed as well because the ramifications that it would have for the gaming industry to force companies to support it is spot on, dude. You would crush innovation, dude.

My brain, so just we gotta wrap up, right? But my brain instantly is like, my mind instantly goes to to the if you want the jackpot, you're going to risk it. If you want to bet it all on black, you know what I mean? Which is what these developers are doing with these live service games. That is an inherent risk that you were saying we're either going to win a whole bunch of money or we're going to lose all our money because you're willing to bet that you're going to hit it. And if you don't, that's on you, man, that's a bad decision from the beginning.

So if you want to develop a live service game that flops and you can gonna hit it. And if you don't, that's on you, man. That's a bad decision from the beginning. So if you wanna develop a live service game that flops and you can't do it, 100% on you, man. You should have made a better choice. Make an indie game. There's tons of money to be had in that. But they go, no, we want the billions of dollars. So we're betting it all on black, baby. And I'm like, bro, that's a stupid decision.

That's on you, man. You should be punished if it doesn't work out in that case. But you start trying to regulate these things and saying, hey, you have to support these things. You're gonna destroy the industry, man. Like legitimately. And again, the point is where there would be no innovation anymore is absolutely true.

And so we talk about researching these sites that I don't necessarily believe in. I'm like, dang it, dude. As much as I hate live service gaming, in theory, number one, they absolutely serve a purpose to millions of gamers in the world. So it's like we're all four people loving their games. And so this is something that as gamers,

we have to acknowledge. The other issue is that, do you really want to stifle all innovation and ruin all of these companies that maybe they learn? A lesson and they go. Okay. Well, we're not gonna try that again But now we're gonna go make something better because we've learned from our previous failures Which is something that all humans benefit from in life, too. So Love it. You got some good Fun episode, man. I love this. Okay. Now, John, do you feel a little gross? Cause I feel a little gross, man.

No, I don't. It's like, I learned something from this. I, I, I do. I find tremendous value. Cause again, I normally the company guy, it, I found tremendous value in going like, Oh, huh. Interesting. I actually take the side of the users in this, but as far as how I feel like, oh, huh, interesting. I actually take the side of the users in this. But as far as how I feel, man, ultimately,

I'm very libertarian-oriented where just people vote with their money and we uphold the law, and that's it. Whatever is legal is permissible. People should exploit the rules to their full extent. And if people don't like it, they should either stop paying for it or we should vote to change the law. Yeah. Yeah.

I, if you re look the, you know, no risk it, no biscuit. Right. But these companies that are willing to risk it, there should be ramifications. You know, Concord costs Sony $250 million or something like that. Good. You learned a lot. You learned a lesson. Hopefully you learned a lesson. We'll see.

I mean, I don't know, but maybe they didn't. But that is the, I think gamers have that hope that it's like, hey, if you make garbage, you're gonna pay a price. And if you make something fun, it'll be okay. Or I don't know, the open source thing really spoke to me, man. I think that is absolutely the solution, dude.

I 100% for this particular topic, if we want something that's not crippling to the company and satisfies the gamers, so this is a happy medium, if you want to stop supporting your game, you give the code to that game to the public and let them run with it at that point. Yeah. Dude, and like as a holistic benefit too to you might end up discovering some Awesome developers out there who take something that you that you failed at make it successful and now you've got a new asset You know find this person bring them out of the dev team I love these developers that actually embrace the modders and say hey, you know

We're gonna form the synergistic relationship with you, not like Nintendo, where they're like, we're suing you, how dare you make a mod for our game? You wanna use a different plug? Get outta here! You know, and then you've got other developers where they're like, dude, we freaking love these mods you guys came up with, why don't you come tour the studio?

Let's hang out, man. Oh, you guys think you could make something good for this game? Do you want a job, by the way? To me, that's the best option. Turn your flaw into a feature. Yep absolutely. So all right everybody thank you for joining us for another episode of GameCourt. Kudos John for getting out of your comfort zone. Likewise Josh. Ryan kudos to you for making the right decision on this one. Boo John, boo Ryan. I would also like to point out that for our legendary supporters,

you get to vote on John's punishment for losing this case. Oh, yeah. I forgot about this. He completely forgot and I did the whole time. Oh, man, oh, that's right. I forgot about that too. You guys had me going back and forth. Like you guys did a really good job. I didn't forget. I forgot about that too. Oh, God. You guys had me going back and forth. Like, you guys did a really good job.

I didn't forget. I forgot to mention, I'm going on an extended vacation. I don't know. That's why, Ryan, when you picked me, I had such a sigh of relief. I was like, oh, thank goodness, man. I totally forgot about that. Our legendary supporters of the show,

you will get to vote on a punishment for John that he has to do on a future episode. Please be kind, guys. We'll handle that part of it. If you would like to have some fun, maybe become a legendary supporter of this show. You can do that by clicking the link in the episode description. It helps support this podcast and keep this fun content rolling. Thank you everybody for joining us on this one. No matter what side you're on on this one, man, it's good to be a gamer. Remember that there's people out there where some of these live service games are

the only games that they get access to and so while we kind of bemoan them remember that you are by nature supporting them and that also there are a lot of people that rely on these games for their gaming entertainment as well so that's gonna do it for this one everybody until next time happy gaming see ya to do