Open question as to whether 'You give me money, I give you nothing' is an unconscionable contract, or even counts as a contract at all.

Is there any case law on how enforceable the modification clause is with respect to consumer rights law? I know that with regards to resale, at least some EU courts have ruled that for the purposes of resale, an EULA can not restrict transfer so long as it is a permanent transfer.

@Chengarda OP got 6 years of gameplay out of the money. "I give you nothing" is a bit of a stretch in light of that. Servers to host multiplayer isn't free. And... fiat money in exchange for fiat game is entertaining in its own right.

@WernerCD However Blizzard was selling Overwatch 1 right up to the release of Overwatch 2. Is 6 months of use a reasonable amount of play time for example? What about 1 month or even 2 weeks.

@WernerCD I just meant as it's written the customer isn't guaranteed anything, they could sell you the game at launch and then never make the servers live so the product you bought does nothing.

Their EULA says they can. I'm just questioning whether or not it has been established whether this is an enforceable clause. In UsedSoft GmbH v Oracle International Corp the European Court of Justice ruled that EULAs did not allow the prohibition of resale. As such, would the EU legal guarantee of conformity prevent Blizzard from invoking this clause. My reading is that if Overwatch 1 had been purchased after 1/1/2022, then that would make this clause at least partially unenforceable.

@WernerCD There's also precedence of selling the game in an incomplete state and just abandoning finishing it when not enough people buy it.

"licensed, not sold" - Almost certainly they clicked a button that said "buy" or "purchase" when they paid for the game (excuse me, paid for the license). So it seems relevant whether that language was illegally misleading.

EULAs can say what they like; what matters is French law. However I cannot imagine a company is required to indefinitely maintain a server because you paid some money to play.

@JackAidley: In this case, EU law. I'm pretty sure Blizzard will have an EU subsidiary which is the counterparty for the EULA.

I never played this game. But I hope some laws will be created to require releasing everything needed to run the game when company discontinues it.

@usul, yes, they paid for the license they bought.

@usul you buy a license. Buying the game, meaning the source code and artwork, would cost many millions of dollars, if it were for sale at all.

@akostadinov such a law would guarantee that no game would ever be released again.

@jwenting Thats how games used to be released. It used to be standard to support local hosted servers, and many games still support local hosted server modes. It can be advantageous for modding, and/or when people are located close together but far from the server.

By continuing to read this comment you agree to transfer 90% of your net worth and gross income over the next 50 years to the author of the comment in exchange for the information contained. I like puppies. Now, did you enjoy this EULA? What is your opinion on EULAs being legally binding? How is this EULA any different than Blizzards? Those are interesting questions. Meanwhile, please track me down and start your transfer of most of your current and future assets.

@user1937198 no, giving away the source code and artwork after a while is NOT how games used to be released.

@jwenting How do you need any of that to run the game? All you need is the server binaries.

@jwenting He wasn't being as pedantic. Games were often not released with source code, but they were certainly released with artwork (just not the copyright or license to redistribute further) and included the binaries to host your own server (as part of the main executable usually), traditionally on your LAN, but also over the Internet in many cases. E.g. Age of Empires, Starcraft (the original and Brood War expansion), CounterStrike, Warcraft and Warcraft II. A number of Blizzard games were among these. There was a fair amount of controversy when SCII was released and didn't support LAN.

@user1937198, that's jwentings point, you don't need the source code or the artwork to play the game, you just need the license to do so. That's the difference between owning the game and owning a license to use/play the game. And many pieces of software, including games, require purchasing a different license to locally host the server for the software. Again, that's the difference between licensing and outright ownership of software.

@WernerCD It doesn't look like the OP said when they bought it. They very well could have bought it right before they shut down the service.

@ttbek, but that's still a license to use the software, not ownership of the game, which is jwenting's point. Also their point, the source code is not the same as the binaries or other compiled code used to run the software locally or on a server. When you buy software, it's for a license to use it not actual ownership of the software. If you were to actually buy the software, no one else could buy it or use it unless you sold it or, again, licensed others to use it. You could even release it as freeware, but that's still a license for others to use it.

@computercarguy Yes, and indefinite and practically irrevocable license to use that came on a physical disc in my physical possession. Just like when you buy a print of an artwork you don't get the copyright, but the artist has no right to come in your house and take away the print they sold you. Disney doesn't get to raid my basement for the VHS tape I bought ages ago, etc... So in a sense you were actually buying a copy of the binary, sure, not ownership of the intellectual property, but you did get to keep your copy and remotely disabling it would almost certainly not have flown.

@ttbek And to add to that, the EU has actually ruled that the original publisher can't stop you reselling your indefinite, irrevocable license, regardless what they put in their EULA about not selling it to you (UsedSoft GmbH v Oracle International Corp).

@user1937198 Indeed, and I might need to look it up again, but I think in Germany for an EULA to be enforceable it needs to be presented prior to purchase (though I guess they have cleverly done that here by getting users to agree to the EULA when they get Battle.net before they "purchase" the license for a game through Battle.net).

@ttbek, actually, Disney could possibly raid your house for the VHS, if they found you violating the license by making copies of the tape. Also, that wasn't a "binary" in the same sense as it means today, by even AV definitions. You might be able resell the original license, meaning you can't use the software anymore, but it doesn't mean you can duplicate the license for others.

@ttbek, also, artists can revoke a license to use artwork, especially when the licensee is using it for monetary gains. You are helping to prove that a copyright and license aren't the same thing. plagiarismtoday.com/2019/09/05/copyright-and-commissioned-ar‌​t

@computercarguy that's an irrelevant unrelated issue. Disney would have to actually provide evidence to support such a raid, go to court and get a warrant, and you'd be able to fight it in court. They can't just make the video tape disappear by pushing a button.

@JackAidley: Then they better turn the servers over to the community when they're sick of running them.

@barbecue, it is relevant to the extent that Disney has that option, even if it is more difficult to do. Also, Disney has a history of "making tapes disappear" by refusing to sell their movies, by putting it in their "vault" and only making the movies available for legal distributor sale during specific times/dates. This license to watch a movie can also be seen with online UltraViolet codes that only work for specific times/dates. You own only a license, not the work itself, as this answer by Jen states.

@Joshua, what "community" are you referring to? Is that "community" going to pay tens or hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions, of dollars/euro/whatever for the physical servers that likely also host other games? Is that "community" going to pay hundreds of thousands for the IT staff to keep them running and housed? Again, a license was purchased, not the actual game or the physical servers.

@computercarguy I'm aware of the distinction, "It is interesting to note that the Adobe court's holding is consistent with European Union directives and decisions. Under European Union law, a lump-sum license to use software for an indefinite period of time is deemed to be a sale of goods, in which case the software vendors' restrictions on transfer of physical copies of that software will not be enforced." wilmerhale.com/en/insights/publications/…

@computercarguy Disney does NOT have that option. They could prevent public use or commercial use, but they cannot prevent private use of sold VHS tapes in that manner even you invited them to take a look around. It would be property theft of a physical sold good. Edit: and the same for artists generally. As far as I'm aware... or is there a case you would like to cite where an artist reclaimed a sold print from private use?

@ttbek, yes they can, by providing proof to a court that a copyright violation was made and 503(b) of Copyright laws says "..., the court may order the destruction or other reasonable disposition of all copies or phonorecords found to have been made or used in violation of the copyright owner’s exclusive rights...", which could even include a server or PC that has the digital reproduction meant for redistribution, along with the "master" VHS. copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html Copyright laws assume materials exist in physical forms.

@computercarguy No such copy or reproduction was made in this instance except by Disney themselves, whom sold that copy to me. And from the first sale principle... they cannot turn around and magically convert the sale to be only a temporary license of use. Other cases may be more complicated, here is some interesting reading for you: digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/… Do recall that VHS is analog, but some digital transactions do qualify as sales... it can be complicated. An intent to license doesn't always do that legally.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.