You missed him talking about the legal side of things, in that video and this one
"First, let's talk about the legal answer to this. In Europe. The United States, forget it.

Subscription-based games, I don't think we have a leg to stand on in regard to commerce law. So that's "World of Warcraft", "Final Fantasy XIV", and so on. These games tell you exactly when they end, and that's what normal services do. So yeah, I don't think there's anything in the law that gets us there, and as I mentioned earlier, I also think it's a hard ask.

But what about other live service games? Ones that you buy once, then that's it. So games like "The Crew", "Destiny", "Overwatch".
It is not clear in multiple countries if those are goods or services. You pay a one-time fee for a product, with no stated expiration date, that sounds like a "good". But it depends on an external service, except you're not told how long that lasts. So that doesn't really meet the full definition of a "service" commercially either.

Now you can buy lifetime memberships to things, but those are associated with the business operating. So if I bought a lifetime membership to a gym, then it's canceled after four years, but the gym is still operating and trying to sell me a new lifetime plan? I'd be pissed. I think you could sue for that. "The Culling II", a one-time purchase, lasted eight days before it shut down. "Guild Wars", also a one-time purchase, has been going for over 19 years. So how can customers make an informed decision with that kind of spread? Consumer laws can get picky about that sort of thing.
If I bought a warranty for a dryer, and the company refused to tell me how long that warranty lasted.
"Maybe it's a week, maybe it's five years! We're not going to tell you." How the hell would that be legal in other industries?
So just because they call themselves "service games", doesn't mean they fit the legal definition of a service."
...
"Games are code. They can be preserved. But we're creating systems where destruction is the only option possible. And it's preventable. Every time MMO emulators get leaked, or reverse engineered, or released by the devs themselves, it just shows this is all possible.

I would like to see all games people care about saved. Even the subscription ones. Even though I know I don't have a legal angle on those. But other live service games? Give me a break.
At this point in time, it's not even clear if those are breaking the law or not. But even if they're not, customers hate having their games destroyed. This is not a hard concept to understand.

The mindset here is aspirational. To try and make art and gaming better than it is now. Because there's so much obvious destruction. Why settle for an awful practice that might be illegal, when a better way hasn't even been tried? If you don't get it, I don't think you will."

I didn't miss anything, it's mostly just bad analogy after bad analogy. Examples for his "Three criteria as to why online-only service games 'aren't services'" (none of which are legal requirements for the definition of a service, just his personal opinion):-

1. "An expectation of how long it lasts" = He basically compares paying for a game once and expecting continued supported after a decade, with monthly billing of an ongoing electric bill. That's not even on the same planet.

2. "A general expectation of when the service is completed" is also nonsense comparing it to "roofers who fix your roof". How do you know when "continued online DRM authorization" is "finished" when there simply is no "finish".

3. "There are real-world limitations for keeping the service going". Again, this is Ross's opinion, not a legal requirement. Companies absolutely can withdraw services without going out of business. Eg, there was no "real-world limitation" to Games For Windows Live or Zune Marketplace being withdrawn. Companies do not need to wait for a literal earthquake to strike or impending bankruptcy being being "allowed" to withdraw a service.

I even agree with Ross's underlying intent, but he (and you) need to learn to separate what the law says vs "telling yourselves what you want to hear".

Legal argument: Games are goods
https://linustechtips.com/blogs/entry/1477-you-legally-own-the-software-that-you-purchase-and-any-claims-otherwise-are-urban-myth-or-corporate-propaganda/
Also see my above comment

I am open to having my mind changed (just like how Ross is open + organizers are open to a public discussion on this), but you seem to be acting obtuse and selectively engaging the arguments and dismissing everything else rather than engaging it fully. In other words, throwing out the baby with the bathwater

I've also attached legal arguments in the images below

I guess, but "dead" to me is that I (or almost everyone else) would be unable to play that game, with or without money, due to circumstances and shit.

Two examples spring to mind:

1 That mech game made for the first XBox console that needed a specific expensive mech controller to play, I guess it might be possible to find working copies of that in Ebay (including a working controller), but I presume they will become harder and harder to obtain when all those mech controllers finally become broken in time.

2. Marble Madness 2. I haven't checked the status lately but I recall there was only one working (prototype?) arcade cabinet with that game, and the owner definitely wouldn't let anyone to e.g. make a digital copy of the game ROM. So he was the only person in the whole wide world able to play the game, and when that arcade cabined dies, then no one can. RIP. (The status of this may have changed, not sure, maybe someone has been able to copy that ROM to safety etc.).

Either way, from my point of view those two games are dead as I don't think it is feasible for me to try to play them. I think I already threw my working XBox console to recycling (the only game I had for it was Halo 2, and in the end I ended up playing that on PC instead as it played better on PC, better controls and clearer graphics), so I would have to buy a working XBox console + that mech game with a working controller.

EDIT: I stand corrected about Marble Madness 2, apparently it was successfully dumped from the hardware already several years ago. You could of course argue was that game ever "born" to begin with, as it apparently wasn't officially ever released to public.

They aren't just "goods" since the whole requirement for logging in, authenticating just for the DRM, cloud saves, let alone providing the multi-player server ARE ALL ONLINE SERVICE by definition. Quoting irrelevant stuff about Oracle serial keys, etc, doesn't change that. You may be able to argue that for DRM-Free games, a GOG offline installer itself is a "good" (and the cloud services, eg, store website, game updates, achievements, etc, are services) but that hardly applies to most DRM'd games for which you need to use the store's SERVICES (client, servers), every time you want to play the game. As much as Ross (and you) want to pretend an online-only game is as much a "non-service good" as a coffee table, it really isn't.

Here's a link from the EU themselves:-

"Cloud computing allows services such as technical infrastructure, platforms and software to be provided on a global basis"
https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/help-exporters-and-importers/accessing-markets/goods-and-services_en

Software cloud services, eg, OneDrive are services. And they don't stop being services just because they're games (or because Ross says so) when they very obviously require ongoing cloud services to function. That's what multi-player servers, DRM servers, cloud save servers, etc, all are - Cloud SERVICES.

"It is not clear in multiple countries if those are goods or services. You pay a one-time fee for a product, with no stated expiration date, that sounds like a "good". But it depends on an external service, except you're not told how long that lasts. So that doesn't really meet the full definition of a "service" commercially either." - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEVBiN5SKuA&t=1069s

Products are defined as "services" or "goods". A "good" is something you buy and own, a "service" is an action performed for you. So if you buy a hammer, it's a "good". It's a thing. It's yours.
But if you get a haircut, that's a service. They didn't just hand you your haircut in a box, they used scissors to deliver the desired result. Or, so I'm told.
...
Things like digital movies you buy are intangible goods. You can't touch a movie.
But it's still sold like a physical good. Well guess what? Most games are goods too.
Even Games as a Service. So yes, I just said Games as a Service are not services.
...
But, I have to concede on one point. If it's a game that has a subscription fee that you pay each month like World of Warcraft, under most laws, those ARE services and I don't think I can make the case those are fraud [to the government/consumer protection agencies]." - https://youtu.be/tUAX0gnZ3Nw?t=508

I already answered that. There is no definition under EU law that says software cloud services stop being services just because there's no some specific cutoff date for 10 year old software. Whatever "here's my 3 rules" Ross wants to invent is just personal opinion. Forget about Youtube opinions and start dealing with the facts.

Yes and as explained to you about 15 times, the service for online-only games is precisely all the online cloud services needed to get the game to work...

You can repeat it a million times and you're wrong, it just becomes a mental health issue at that point. Same goes with Ross calling things he doesn't like "fraud" doesn't actually make it criminal fraud, it's just invented personal definitions.

I do not enjoy to agree because it would mean we and i have to accept defeat on the term of "that we actually could achieve any sort of ownership" which is in fact, related to any games with DRM (a necessary online service is always a DRM... sorry gamers, i let the bomb explode) just impossible.

The big failure Ross is doing is trying to see such a game, with a mandatory online service, as a goods, while in fact... it is a service for which he had to pay a "upfront payment" he was considering some sort of "goods". As long as the link between the service and this goods is "unable to become detached"; then this game can not be handled as a goods, it need to be handled by the definition of a service.

So, every Steam game, with a DRM, is NO goods... i let the bomb explode now, for everyone to understand.

What is a goods? Basically GOG games that can be played without a mandatory service, those surely can be handled as goods, but that does not mean they are not as well bound to some "legal conditions", usually found in the EULA.

Yes, of course... this was the whole direction Steam always was heading. They even are pushing the publishers of making use of their services, so any rights a gamer could have related to goods are instantly gone, finish story.

I mean, thats the difference between "a certain grade of ownership" and "exactly zero ownership".

Sure i would like to have more customer friendly conditions but then it have to be related to their services which surely can become complicated on "how to define its conditions". I rarely ever deal with it... so if i do not get a certain grade of ownership (in general the capability to play a game without a DRM, especially no online DRM) i may not get a game. I did already RMA a Ubisoft game which was demanding a Online connection, so i surely am setting my boundaries.

Sure, i mean... there could be the demand to turn this game, which is handled as a service during their lifetime, into a goods... at the end of their lifetime; basically making it playable without the service-attachment, which will result into some sort of ownership, but by my understanding, this is very hard to enforce because it would "take away the freedom" of those creating their service for keeping it up as a service or even ending their service at a unknown point. Even Steam itself can be considered a service and they never ever, with the usual exceptions, are handing out any sort of ownership. Most gamers are accepting it and they seem to be fine with.

It is just important to write it down in very fat letters, "you are not buying any sort of ownership and we reserve the right to end our service at any point we see fit", something like that, to make it as clear as possible. If buyers are "accepting" it... then so be it... they said yes and that is "a deal"; at that point. If we (well not usually me, those affected) do not want it... obviously they may need to buy something different or not buying it at all, because in general... those offering it... the service, got the right to sell their service.

We could still discuss "Its legal shape" but thats another story not directly bound to goods.

Yes i find it bad "killing games" in general, but the real issue is... can it become prevented? I mean, if some creator wants to kill their game which was handled as a service... then they could in theory simply kill it without any possible legal consequences.

Can it be different? Sure... but then the whole legal system need some huge changes, because it would mean to define "ownership" completely new: For example we need to consider any software as some sort of intellectual property which will automatically become turned into "public property" after a certain period or under certain conditions. Which is already a hard nut to eat for the whole "legal system", along with the whole industry. It is not impossible but then we have to kinda turn "the known world" upside down and recreate many stuff, as we see it in the current legal system and its ownership, new.

same goal post you are just looking for a excuse to be moody at me.
i'm so sick of people doing this... just please.

The single fastest way to lose any court case on Earth is to be one of those "Sovereign Citizen" types whose entire legal argument is playing dumb word redefinition games with the judge. "Cloud Services are not services because I say so" = "No officer, I'm not driving, I'm travelling (in the driver's seat of the car that I'm driving)..." Seriously, if this does succeed and get to court, don't even go there, just focus on lack of clarity of advertising. There's a good chance the judge will throw the whole case out as being "frivolous" if your opening statement includes above 'stupidly stupid' one liners.

Simply changing owners of any required online server services, doesn't necessarily make it "service-less" like offline single-player games. Games that still need to connect to a central server to authenticate MT's (that Ross wants to keep in) or online Anti-Cheat (that Ross wants to remove but many multi-player gamers actually want to keep in) are still services. And just because something is open-sourced doesn't mean it can't still be an online service (see ProtonMail).

If you're trying to make this "light touch" law compulsory to the extent that you are looking to governments to force companies to give out source code / server-side code that isn't even 25% of the way through its Copyright duration = needs MAJOR changes in IP law and that very definitely isn't some "light touch" thing it was originally promoted as. I still don't think you (or Ross) are grasping the big picture as to what you're actually asking for on the legal side of things (1. The literal tearing up of Copyright law, and 2. Have governments dictate terms between two private parties in contract law). That's as legislatively "light touch" as overhauling most countries whole tax systems...

Edit: Re-reading it, it sounds like what you think you want is for publishers to "just" do the equivalent of Doom 2 in releasing a bit of source code then gamers can "simply" run their own decentralised servers. At the same time, these complex large online-only GaaS games have huge chunks of code (eg, AI) that exist only in the cloud and would need rewriting to be local, you want to keep server-side achievements, MT's, anti-cheat, etc, and all that stuff that require centralized service based databases but just have someone else "take over" management, and haven't exactly "joined the dots" between the two. They may both be video games with single & multi-player components, but The Crew and Doom 2 couldn't be further apart in terms of community run server backend logistics.

Does not matter in which terms it is considered a service. Even if forced by something a customer may not necessarily want, for example "providing a server", "handing out achievements, trading cards" or whatelse... it all can be considered a service many customers apparently are willing to pay a lot for.

Does it need to be online? In the case of achievements, nope... DLCs... nope... not even the server in theory because any powerful PC with a fast connection can in theory become a server°°, with the right server software. Most of those service stuff is here in order to make money out of it and in order to avoid handing over any sort of ownership. In the end it is kinda a layer of DRM, while at the same time "producing money".

As soon as it is not producing money anymore, for example if the server costs more than the gain from micro transactions, the company might shut down the server at some point. However... and yes, this is the thing Ross was noticing correctly: There is currently no law forcing any company handing over this "out of service" game to the public so they could host it themself using their own server. It has been done in some cases (Phantasy Star Universe as an example, already told) but there is no law which could force a company of "handing over any rights, along with any data". Either they do it by themself without any obligations... well good luck on Ubisoft and alike... zero chance there... or it is currently, by current laws, pretty much over for the game and the gamers.

So, he is right, in such a case there would be a new law required, which is difficult to achieve for sure.

°°In theory every powerful PC can be "a block" and could host a certain amount of players, all we need is some linking system which we actually already had in the past, it is nothing new at all. Obviously, there is no interest anymore into those sort of multiplayer systems, as it simply is not a service anymore, which is the whole point. It would "evade a service", which is not anymore in any companies interest. It would be a decentralized method, comparable to the centralized banking system vs. a decentralized crypto system, in order to understand its bigger picture. On gaming something like this does not really exist anymore. I mean, even Baldurs Gate 3, in order to play it online, even GOG gamers need to connect to a official server... they do not allow for any other option.

I think you guys are way passed the point at which you seriously need to hire and sit down with a proper IP lawyer specialising in video games for a few hours and start "proof-checking" some of those videos you keep quoting, if you're seriously planning on getting governments to force all software companies to become Open Source every time they withdraw support for any product from the market. Things like code-reuse (parts of server-side code from the old game may be reused in a newer sequel) will kill that proposal stone dead for a lot of multi-player games.

Edit: Not "beating about the bush" but what you really appear to want it this - You want to reduce Copyright durations from current levels (typically +70 years for "literary work" which is how source code for software is classified) to however long a game is sold / supported for (as little as 5 years) before governments force it to become Public Domain on the day of "delisting", but without wanting to admit that's the scale of legal changes that are realistically required to enforce half the stuff you want governments to "just make publishers do" vs existing IP / Copyright laws.