Posts: Page 23

Is Apple Cornering Itself Out of the High-End Gaming Market?

Hey everyone!

Following the discussion in today live session I came across a very short article on Slashgear.com regarding game streaming. For some background information, Microsoft launched the beta of its mobile game streaming service, which I believe was referred to as Project xCloud, just recently in September. With a compatible controller, it enables users to play over 100 Xbox games on Android devices directly from the cloud. The article essentially just announces that Microsoft is working on bringing that service to Xbox consoles and PC. If you want to read it yourself you can find it here.

While short in length and substantive content, I thought this would be worth sharing based on an observation and comment from the author of the article, Eric Abent. Eric notes that “even though game streaming is part of the Xbox Game Pass Ultimate package, it’s only available on Android devices. Given Apple’s rules regarding App Store distribution, it’s safe to say that game streaming won’t be coming to iOS anytime soon”.

I think ties into what we’ve talking about from time to time regarding Apple’s disputes with Epic games pretty well and with this, I have to wonder: Is Apple cornering itself out of the high-end gaming market (i.e., premium, full scale, 80-90$ games like Call of Duty)?

Through its iPhone/iPads/etc. its probably safe to assume that Apple has strong hold on cheap, small purchase mobile games. If a company wants to release a typical .99 cent mobile game, its probably safe to assume that they wont get too far without access to Apple’s app store. But what about when it comes to the other big players like Microsoft or Sony that not only have their own distribution networks and hardware, but the power and means to go around Apple? Will Apple finally have to back off on its positions or will it miss out on this market?

Some things to think about.

Colton W.

full link: https://www.slashgear.com/microsoft-says-xcloud-game-streaming-for-console-and-pc-is-on-the-to-do-list-07641443/

QAnon as a Virtual Quest?

By omri rozen on October 5, 2020

Hi guys! This episode of the podcast “Deep Background,” hosted by Noah Feldman – a leading Harvard Law prof – concerns the rise of QAnon, a pervasive conspiracy theory/community online that is defined by its support for Donald Trump as an ‘undercover’ agent fighting against the ‘deep state.’ In the episode, the podcast hosts the CEO of a gaming company (‘Six to Start’), whose most successful titles belong to a genre of games called ‘virtual quests,’ where the player is dropped in a simulated version of the internet and is encouraged to ‘research’ and search for clues in order to progress the plot and uncover the game’s mysteries. See for example the company’s game “Smokescreen:” https://www.sixtostart.com/smokescreen/.

I found the CEO’s take on QAnon fascinating, because it raises issues about the ‘gamification’ of politics, particularly in a ‘post-truth’ era where online ‘research’ can just about confirm any worldview. I think that ultimately movements like QAnon may only be the start of substantial shifts in our politics brought about by the move towards virtual spaces for both gaming and non-gaming purposes, or perhaps even the ‘hybridization’ of gaming and non-gaming activities.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-allure-of-qanon/id1460055316?i=1000490559448

GAMES

DIGITAL

A.I.

COMMUNICATIONS

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

PRIVACY

CREATIVITY

Jon

Glitches in E-sports

By chris wong on October 2, 2020

Since we were on the topic of e-sports and the amount of money that is involved with the competition, this article lists many incidents where game bugs, rather than player skill, determined the outcome of such competitions. These bugs can include unintentional bugs, such as disconnects and glitched out physics or hitboxes, as well as exploits discovered and used by the players. These raise many interesting legal issues that simply cannot arise in non-video game competitions.

In terms of unintentional glitches, how liable are the game companies in providing a reasonably glitch-free game? In sports and other such events, if the soccer ball spontaneously turned to dust due to a production defect while flying towards a near-certain goal, or if part of the basketball court suddenly became friction-less during a game there will definitely be legal consequences to the manufacturer of the ball and owner of the court, independent of any danger to the players. Should the same liability apply to game manufacturers? What about the internet providers for high stakes online professional games?

And in regards to exploits used by players to gain an advantage that was unintended by the game developers, do e-sport competitors have any duty to not engage in these tactics? Or is it the case where the discovery and application of in-game bugs form part of the “meta” in gaming and constitute valid strategies? And if it is the latter case, how would patches and updates play into the professional e-sports environment, as it can be seen as the game companies actively undermining player efforts (which goes back to the previous post on the “Publisher vs Pro” dynamic)?

E-sports: Publishers versus Pros

A recent Wired.com article touches on the precarious position of e-sports pros in a world where the game publishers hold all the power. Many e-sports pros are full time employees, with salaries and benefits, and compete in an industry valued at over a billion dollars. But, as the article says, there is one major difference between a professional gamer and a professional athlete – whereas no one can ‘own’ soccer or basketball, game publishers own the games, the IP, and even the leagues tied to those games. This creates an ecosystem where publishers like Activision Blizzard or EA reap huge financial and advertising benefits from e-sports leagues, while the players are often left stressed, anxious, and with near-zero control over their careers.

The article raises many important legal questions regarding e-sports professionals and the leagues they play in. Why aren’t the players unionized like other athletes in major league sports? To what extent should publishers be allowed to change or patch major parts of their games when people’s livelihood depends on it? What legal protections can be afforded to the youngest e-sports pros, who are subject to outrageous practice schedules, low compensation, and thousands of miles of travel every year? These issues sit at a crossroads of IP law and employment law, and as the nascent professional gaming industry continues to grow, it will be interesting to see how these problems are settled. What do you think the world of e-sports will look like in five or ten years time?

If you’re interested in the history of e-sports, this HotSpawn article is a great place to start.

Are hardware mods akin to in-game mods?

By Christine Arnold on September 27, 2020

The Verge recently posted an article on how to modify an Xbox One controller into a throttle-and-stick setup with 3-D printed parts to make it easier to play Microsoft Flight Simulator.

In last week’s class we discussed unauthorized in-game mods; for example, mods created in Nintendo’s Animal Crossing by hackers. If a game developer takes issue with in-game mods on the basis that they disrupt the balance of the game, create unfair advantages, and/or interfere with the developer’s creative or artistic vision for the game (not an exhaustive list,) and if the developer intended for the game to be played with a particular hardware, then aside from the practical differences in policing in-game vs hardware mods, are modifications to hardware analogous in principle to in-game mods?

*Edit (October 7, 2020)* Hey everyone, some of the discussion raised in class today on this post made me aware that I may not have been sufficiently clear about my query in the post, so I’ll try to clarify:

While there are many interesting and valid perspectives from which to analyze the issue of whether hardware (controller) mods are analogous to in-game (software) mods (e.g. ownership, licensing, ability to police and regulate, cheating, developer tolerance, etc.,) my musing is confined to the narrow premise where if developers take issue with in-game mods on the basis that they result in a loss of control over the art, look, feel, and balance of their games (Nintendo is a good example), do controller mods present the same problem in principle if they cause a similar loss of control?

Hope I’ve made this clear as mud :p

*Edit #2 (October 9, 2020)* Here is a Reddit post from someone who makes controller mods. They are pretty impressive and you can start to see how those mods may allow in-game mechanics that may not have been possible otherwise.

Posts

Class 6 – 10/7/20; Synchronous Q&A/Discussion

Is Apple Cornering Itself Out of the High-End Gaming Market?

QAnon as a Virtual Quest?

News of the Week; September 30, 2020

Glitches in E-sports

Class 5 – Week of 9-28-20 Audio-Slides; “Right to CreaTE or Rights to the Creation”

E-sports: Publishers versus Pros

Class 4 – Week of 9-21-20 Audio-Slides; “John Milton Plays Grand Prix Legends”

Are hardware mods akin to in-game mods?

News of the Week; September 23, 2020

Check out theVideos of Interest to Law 423 on YouTube

Communications Law

Join the Community!

Top Commented

Featured