Another interesting read, this time from IGN:

http://uk.games.ign.com/articles/121/1219852p1.html

What cough my eye especially was:

"Adjusting the model by which games are distributed and played to a more obvious service model would help to clarify what videogames are, and avoid some of these problems inherent in EULAs. With this explicit service model, there's no need for an EULA because it's made clear for both sides that gamers don't own the game. This model can have advantages for gamers too, because they only pay according to how much they use the service. Sometimes the core game is completely free, with publishers relying on micro-transactions or advertising revenue for profits."

and:

"Yet if we judge videogame services differently to other services, this presents us with similar problems of videogames evading specific legal classification. Therefore, perhaps the answer is not for publishers to make their games more obviously services, but for the law to pin down precisely what games are. Jas suggests a couple of potential alternatives. "Some people have argued that software and games either need to be legally classified as a special kind of service with special rules, or possibly be given a new classification altogether which sits somewhere between goods and services but isn't either." "

Maybe it is time for a clear legal classification on what computer games are or are not. Would solve a lot of arguments.

(Didn't read the article, only the quotes provided)

This is a very daft argument. Making a game a service is actually going to blur what the consumer is getting even further. And you won't need an EULA, but you'll need an equivalent instead. The whole argument is so inherently broken and groundless.

edit: I fail to see why people even read these ridiculous pro-publisher anti-consumer articles on sites like IGN.

edit: ok, actually read the article now. What this Jas Purewal guy says is completely correct - he outlines the basic legal issues.

What is however incorrect is the author's conclusion as to the advantages and disadvantages of classifying games as a service.

I don't think anything positive will come for gamers, if anything it will help publishers justify what they have been doing for years and totally removed the very few real or perceived rights customers still had.

And for solving arguments, it's like saying : "[i]from now on it's totally impossible to buy something it's only possible to temporary rent it{/i}" yes it has the merit of being "clear" but it doesn't help the poor fools who actually wanted to "buy" something and not just rent it.

mm, there are lot of things in the article I do not agree with, however I do agree with that many problems right now steams from that games are in a legal grey area. It could be just as well getting legally clarification that a game is a good that can be owned, as legally declaring games as a service. But it should have clear boundaries, even if those are new.

A computer game is a piece of software, just like every other free, commercial, business, or government software out there.

Not sure it's a legal "gray area" at all, peoples hope it is or want to believe it is but I am not convinced that it's actually the case legally. When you "buy" something on Steam the only thing you actually buy is not a game, not even a license, it's just is a mere subscription; a subscription of undetermined length that can be canceled anytime nothing more.

Then it is OK that games are not owned, only licensed?

Of course. They are owned only by a particular entity, whether that is the publisher / developer / or somebody else.

Software is software, it doesn't matter for what purpose it is being used. Even the free and open source software isn't ... how to say... totally free... there is still some licensing involved (doesn't matter if that license gives you full rights, you still license the software).

It is a legal grey area, just read the article - that Jas Purewal guy sets the position out how it is.
The fact is that right now games are what publishers / distributors SAY they are, but this doesn't actually necessarily reflect the actual legal position. What we need (or perhaps not) is a major court cases that provides a legal definition for video games. Or legislation, of course.

The big difference is that with "game as a service" you don't even own a license of the game, you just pay a service provider to let you play the game. It's similar to the difference between buying a DVD and streaming the movie from Netflix.

But when they buy the same game at retail, they expect it to be different. Should not a game have same legal protection, no matter where it is bought? Or when you buy a game in a shop, does your right of ownership only go so far as the physical disc, and not the actual game?

That is correct. Your only ownership is the physical medium through which the game is being distributed. You're still licensing the game.

It's not really any different, for example when you buy a WoW box at retail, you own the box, but you will only be able to play the game for as long as you pay the monthly subscription.

For physical media, it basically works exactly the same as with books or movies or music CDs... you own the physical object, but you don't own the contents. The game that's actually installed on your computer is considered to be separate from the disk itself. While this basically works fine for retail stuff, it makes things very blurry for DD stuff, because there's only the software on your computer, there's no corresponding (but separate) owned media. One of the reasons publishers have been pushing DD sales more and more is because it's easier to control things when there's no actual disk involved.

When a game becomes a service, I instantly turn into a dirty arrhing pirate seeking the "cracked plus ultimate edition" of it....