Ubisoft deleted account with hundreds of dollars’ worth of games for inactivity • Hacker News Board

Re: Ubisoft deleted account with hundreds of dollars’ worth of games for inactivity

#461

Post by root_axis » Mon, Dec 27, 2021, 4:01 PM UTC

TimJRobinson wrote: post #425

Cederfjard wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But do you agree that this is not a very difficult technical problem, and could be implemented with our without a blockchain, and that the real issue would be how to get all actors involved to buy in to such a system? Why would Ubisoft want this? Commercial entities are typically motivated by profit, not wanting to bring Ready Player One to life.

Why do companies do anything in the consumers interest? Competition. You don't see it now, but once many games allow you to resell the skins or game itself, and gamers get used to that, publishers that don't allow it will look evil. Coordination between many companies is an exceptionally difficult problem without blockchains. This is what NFTs solve in a simple way - a neutral platform that every party can easily int…

Blockchains are not useful here. Just mint something like a PGP NFT and eliminate the pointless waste of the blockchain.

Re: Ubisoft deleted account with hundreds of dollars’ worth of games for inactivity

#462

Post by derefr » Mon, Dec 27, 2021, 4:07 PM UTC

BoorishBears wrote: post #427

derefr wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Proof of ownership isn't the issue here. Wouldn't having legal proof of owning a license to an IP, entitle you to then use a copy of the files covered by those IP rights, regardless of how or where you acquire them? (E.g. if you buy a license to Windows, you don't need to download the installation media for Windows from Microsoft in order for your licensed installation of Windows to be legitimate. You can get the W…

The problem isn't getting the media, the problem is the license. If you get Windows and MS has blocked your key, it doesn't matter that you own the key: Windows will talk to their server and the server will say "that's not a valid license I don't care who owns it" Likewise, it doesn't matter where you get a game from, unless you break the DCMA and modify the binary, DRM enabled games will phone home to the "game serv…

> Likewise, it doesn't matter where you get a game from, unless you break the DCMA and modify the binary, DRM enabled games will phone home to the "game service provider" to verify your license.

If you own the license, then downloading a pre-cracked derivative work of the installation media also isn't illegal (provided that the cracker has put the crack itself in the public domain!)

To resume the analogy: Microsoft might not like it that you're using a pre-cracked version of Windows that doesn't phone home; but if you're using that pre-cracked version of retail Windows with a valid retail Windows license, then there's nothing they can legally do about that, even if they somehow find out. (This situation has come up many times in the past; pre-cracked versions of software are sometimes used in industry because of other customizations done during the cracking process that make them more robust for embedded use-cases.)

Now, of course, the cracking itself may have been illegal under the DMCA, but there's a simple fix for that: the cracking just has to be accomplished by someone who's not a US citizen. The DMCA doesn't apply to things that foreign nationals get up to.

(But really, the thing you'd want here is legislation that requires that games that "phone home" to check for IP licensing status, do so to some disinterested third-party IP licensing registry — which could be a blockchain-like immutable ledger, or even just the sort of "IP clearinghouse"-like services that modern commercial music sampling is built on.)

Re: Ubisoft deleted account with hundreds of dollars’ worth of games for inactivity

#463

Post by amarshall » Mon, Dec 27, 2021, 4:11 PM UTC

tjoff wrote: post #256

amarshall wrote: post #109

When possible, try to prefer DRM-free versions of games. If there's DRM, then one doesn't really own it. PCGamingWiki [1] is a great resource that will list the DRM status of a given game for different distributors (yes, some stores may have DRM while others do not). In general, GOG [2] is all DRM-free games. [1]: https://www.pcgamingwiki.com [2]: https://www.gog.com

Lack of DRM wouldn't help if you don't have any way of getting the copy or getting past the license check.

DRM-free games generally do not have any license key (I’ve never seen one with it, but that’s anecdotal).

I’m not sure if an offline-only key check would be considered DRM; maybe is. Realistically such a check doesn’t do much, so what’s the point in including it. Back in the day it was often required to have one of the discs inserted to play—that is definitely DRM.

Re: Ubisoft deleted account with hundreds of dollars’ worth of games for inactivity

#464

Post by derefr » Mon, Dec 27, 2021, 4:17 PM UTC

ulrikrasmussen wrote: post #184

derefr wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Proof of ownership isn't the issue here. Wouldn't having legal proof of owning a license to an IP, entitle you to then use a copy of the files covered by those IP rights, regardless of how or where you acquire them? (E.g. if you buy a license to Windows, you don't need to download the installation media for Windows from Microsoft in order for your licensed installation of Windows to be legitimate. You can get the W…

You don't need NFTs for that. The proof of ownership is just a receipt. It could even be made verifiable by adding a digital signature signed by Ubisofts public key. Still, NFTs are not needed here.

You're right, you don't need an immutable ledger of visible IP licensing rights if that's all you want to accomplish.

But presumably, in a "legal piracy is commonplace, Steam goes out of business" scenario, the studios producing the games would still want to make the games verify your license ownership against something — e.g. to make sure that you're only using your license for one concurrent "seat", rather than using it to activate thousands of copies of the game (like a regular product keys — which usually are "local digital signatures" — would enable.)

Presuming that no central corporate authority could 1. profitably exist in such a market 2. with the right incentives, then a distributed immutable ledger would be a good alternative for storing those licenses in a verifiable manner. (Think of it as an IP licensing activation server run by "everybody." Each time a game wants to run, it would use your signing key to submit a TX incrementing a counter representing the current active uses of the license. Basically, a distributed, cryptographically-verifiable semaphore.)

Re: Ubisoft deleted account with hundreds of dollars’ worth of games for inactivity

#465

Post by bradstewart » Mon, Dec 27, 2021, 4:20 PM UTC

YXNjaGVyZWdlbgo wrote: post #458

giancarlostoro wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A correctly implemented NFT would mean that he could still sell the game to someone else, he should still be able to take the NFT of his games with him and make a new account theoretically. If they provide no way for him to auto export his NFTs then nobody should bother buying NFTs of games since as you're suggesting, it's pointless.

export nfts? doesn't that make it fungable?

I assume "export" here means transfer it to a wallet that the user controls, rather than Ubisoft. You can change ownership of the token without changing the token itself, so its still non-fungible.

Re: Ubisoft deleted account with hundreds of dollars’ worth of games for inactivity

#466

Post by isoskeles » Mon, Dec 27, 2021, 4:24 PM UTC

ChildOfChaos wrote: post #406

Lazare wrote: post #290

I feel a bit disappointed by the number of people suggesting that an NFT would somehow help here. An NFT is just a fancy signed receipt. I can mint an NFT saying the OP owns a bunch of Ubisoft games and give it to him, but his account will still be closed. Ubisoft could mint an NFT saying he owns a bunch of games and give it to him, but his account will still be closed . (He probably still has the receipts from when…

NFT's are stupid. It's just the NFT idiots trying to find an actual legitimate reason for them to exist by saying it solves every problem, which it doesn't.

But supposedly a “correctly implemented” NFT would solve the problem.

Re: Ubisoft deleted account with hundreds of dollars’ worth of games for inactivity

#467

Post by danShumway » Mon, Dec 27, 2021, 4:26 PM UTC

Paradigma11 wrote: post #446

danShumway wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People have pointed to the fact that Ubisoft is using a separate chain, but I want to point out that even on Ethereum you're not guaranteed to have the kind of universal access that you want. Smart contracts are code, and an Ethereum contract can be coded to rely on a centralized service or to only allow selling through a specific marketplace. Additionally, even on Ethereum Ubisoft could monitor the sales and reject…

Just to be clear, they are not using their own chain, its on https://tezos.com/

This is a good point, thanks for the correction. It's not even that Ubisoft could theoretically put the same restrictions on a public chain, they are already actively putting the restrictions on a public chain; just on a different one from Ethereum.

The same mechanisms that blockchains use to verify ownership and to trace ownership history are the same mechanisms that Ubisoft (or any other company) can use to block NFTs or add restrictions around them. But of course, the companies don't need to be so clumsy about how they restrict the tokens, they don't need to have off-chain monitoring and coordinate to block NFTs. They can also just code this stuff directly into the smart contract. Being on a public chain offers no guarantee that individual smart contracts will be decentralized.

Public chains like Ethereum/Tezos that implement smart contracts also inherently give companies tools to use those smart contracts as DRM and centralization mechanisms. In a weird way, the only thing that's decentralized about Ubisoft's NFT system is the enforcement of their DRM and the liability when a token gets stolen, lost, or hacked.

Re: Ubisoft deleted account with hundreds of dollars’ worth of games for inactivity

#468

Post by cinntaile » Mon, Dec 27, 2021, 4:36 PM UTC

isoskeles wrote: post #466

ChildOfChaos wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NFT's are stupid. It's just the NFT idiots trying to find an actual legitimate reason for them to exist by saying it solves every problem, which it doesn't.

But supposedly a “correctly implemented” NFT would solve the problem.

It's one solution to the problem, but it's not the only one.

Re: Ubisoft deleted account with hundreds of dollars’ worth of games for inactivity

#469

Post by danaris » Mon, Dec 27, 2021, 4:38 PM UTC

Hokusai wrote: post #33

endisneigh wrote: post #15

This article is a great example of why we need legislation around ownership of digital items. I generally hate getting the government involved in things, but if you're paying money for goods, there needs to be a way to be credited or receive your digital goods in a way that still works without your "account". Personally I always get kind of nervous around buying things on PSN, Xbox, Stadia, Steam, Oculus, etc. If the…

> I don't really care too much about what the Terms and Services say It does not matter even if you care. You do not have negotiating power to change them. It is a 'my way or highway' situation. And the government should be involved, you alone cannot change the Terms of Service, but your country can create laws to protect you from thieves, whenever they steal physical or digital goods. If you don't like your governme…

> You do not have negotiating power to change them.

IANAL, but I have heard from some people who claimed to be on the Internet things that, if I have understood it correctly, suggests that this fact would weigh heavily against the companies writing the ToS if it came to a court case involving them.

I believe the relevant term is "contract of adhesion"?

Re: Ubisoft deleted account with hundreds of dollars’ worth of games for inactivity

#470

Post by danShumway » Mon, Dec 27, 2021, 4:39 PM UTC

mikegreenberg wrote: post #443

qeternity wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can sell my NFTs on marketplaces completely independent of ubisoft. Even on a public chain, this isn’t true. It’s shocking to me how many people in this space really don’t know the basics. An NFT is just a contract that implements ERC-721/ERC-1155. I can implement restrictions around the transfer functions however I like.

You're missing the point that this would motivate a marketplace where Ubisoft is not the only portal for these NFT-owned games. nftgamingportal.com could exist which accepts these NFTs (in addition to many others) despite whatever restrictions Ubisoft decides to impose (which they are free to do... they own the walled garden).

> nftgamingportal.com could exist which accepts these NFTs (in addition to many others) despite whatever restrictions Ubisoft decides to impose

Ubisoft's coin is on a public chain right now, and they have restrictions that prevent people from using arbitrary 3rd-party marketplaces to trade the NFTs. So it's a nice theory, but it doesn't seem to be working in practice; being on a public chain isn't currently preventing Ubisoft from restricting other portals.

I think people believed this portability was inherent to how NFTs work, that of course anything on a public chain would have to allow 3rd-party marketplaces. But I don't see what mechanisms actually exist to force that outcome; I think that's just a hope that people had rather than an inherent technological property of how blockchain contracts work.