Assassin’s Creed Liberation delisted, unplayable even to owners starting Sept 1
mp1st.com
mp1st.com
"This game is no longer available for sale on Steam". No big deal, right.
Ok, fine, but it doesn't imply the servers going down and the title becoming unplayable...
Then 2nd message:
"Please note this title won't be accessible from <date>..."
Once again, accessible doesn't imply "the game won't start, thanks for the monies".
It's a bloody shame that I can start any games from the 90s on an emulator and they run just as fine, even content heavy. While these titles are completely riddled with DRM and screw you over after X years.
Publishers need to come clean, and after years of milking the cow, they must have a plan allowing paying customers to play the title they've been enjoying all these years. Otherwise, they should be forced to include the verbiage at release date "This title will stop working as of <date in the future>".
This kind of nonsense only promotes cracked games.
There's a baseline of piracy, sure, but there's also making the lives of paying customers more difficult so that piracy becomes the preferred option.
The difference for this game is probably that in addition to Steam the game requires Ubisoft-hosted DRM servers which Valve has no control over.
(*) For as long as you live, unless someone forces Steam to allow transferring subscriptions to other people.
But instances like these heavily undermine my getting more comfortable in Steam walled garden.
Edit: And I think am pretty deep in already. I just ordered Steam Deck. Stuff like this makes me question that decision.
So they might not be the guilty party, but they are sure not innocent. They are taking the cut of the money. It better be going towards protecting me. If they are not protecting me from bad actors then why am I using Steam?
Valve has enormous power and uses it often, even at one point de-listing our entire catalog without warning because we had an additional asset in a game which was granted based on region. (and we got blamed in the media for it).
Ubisoft games are still on Steam despite this, though the big publishers despise this amount of power, and sometimes valve does come across as bullying when you’re on the receiving end.
Those ubi points exist to give people the discounts we aren't allowed to directly give because of Steam licensing terms. :D
The fact they even exist is a symptom of what I'm talking about.
(also: I never worked on uPlay, I worked in the same building)
If Steam is legally required to do that, their contracts with developers will inevitably have the same clauses about refunds if you disable the product.
Steam made it clear that piracy wasn't the enemy - people who pirate might not even buy the game, and people who buy games might not even play it. But back in the old days, this wasn't as clear.
However, the industry will always find ways around it. For example, some games force online multiplayer gameplay in order to advance your character or unlock stuff. This is 'great' when the game is popular because it encourages people to play the multiplayer, but even a year or two later if the server are up, there may not be enough people to play with/against.
So, the legislation would have to prohibit limiting/locking content or gameplay options, say, if the multiplayer options become unavailable or unusable.
What is needed is laws that classify games in situations such as this as abandonware and grant users who have paid for the game carte blanche to get it operating. If copyright holders want to maintain control of a title, then there must be certain consumer expectations met under the law.
This will never happen as long as they can milk games and keep on making money on 40 years old games. Mario 1 is still not abandon-ware. Its Disney's Mickey Mouse all over again.
[1] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/10/28/2021-23...
The original release of Mario 1 still starts up and plays just fine.
Rather what we really need is that in order to qualify for copyright protection at all, source code (ie the original creative work) should be put in escrow. When the copyright expires or the work is abandoned, then the source code gets published as part of the public domain.
Think of it this way - if you learn you don't like a company's practices and chose not to buy their next video game release, does that really derail your life? If not, or if a big chunk of the population wouldn't say yes, we really don't want Uncle Sam rolling in with even more reach than he already has.
Remember that copyright which is only allowed to exist because we think it will result in more creative works that will eventually be part of the commons. If a company is taking active steps to take something away then they are abusing this deal and should forfeit any copyrights.
Eh, not exactly true. A lot of older Windows 90s games need some tweaks to their binaries to run. See what GOG.com did.
Even a more recent game, relatively, like Fallout 3 had issues with multi-core processors that required a tweak to get past the birth scene or you would hard crash. GOG includes this and plays out of the gate. As it should be for a game that is still sold on Steam, but the publisher/dev does not bother.
Personally I just avoid games like that and stick with indie titles for new games.
> As it should be for a game that is still sold on Steam, but the publisher/dev does not bother.
Yes, selling sofware that does not work on current systems is something that Steam needs to crack down on although I fear that the result for many titles would just be that they are no longer sold at all. In a better world, copyright would either not exist, be much shorter so that such compatibility issues are not a big problem and/or would be forfeit when not continuing to sell the software in a functioning state.
> Personally I just avoid games like that and stick with indie titles for new games.
That is a sensible strategy for you as an individual and probably the extend of what you can enact on your own. But we as a society should not just accept that more and more of a shared culture is controlled by corporations and lost when they don't deem it profitable to keep it available anymore. Copyright is a deal between creators and everyone, which is supposed to encourage more creation so that more things will be available to us all. If that deal is being abused or shown to not be a net positive for society then we CAN alter it.
If you destroy my property, you should pay to replace it. If it is no longer available then the lowest valid amount I can think of would be the purchase price.
Unless you want to argue that an official working copy on this game (now unique) would be worth less than the original steam price.
Also if you went to the cinema and watched 90% of a film before the management turfed every one out. Do you think a 10% refund would make it right?
It's tragic but it genuinely feels like that pirated games have better user experience than clean ones.
This went wrong when I was cleaning my desk and I lifted them while I was playing Baldur's Gate II, creating a big scratch on the disc. I polished it up with some toothpaste and it worked fine after that (even used that same disc to install the game later, IIRC).
Kinda ridiculous really, but it was good fun playing around with these sort of things when I was young.
The solution is to convert the sales model to subscription only. If it is clear you are renting it is clear that access is limited.
It’s not great as you’d want to play after end of support, but publishers are not interested for a multitude of reasons. They want a central server for control. Control of gameplay and control of cheaters and control of pirates.
We're not talking ongoing fixes/support here - just the ability to start up this single player game at all. This action encourages future piracy.
Not that I'm shedding a single tear for them.
That was the 1st online "DRM".
I dearly miss playing Battlefield 2142 and Neverwinter Nights just to name 2, on official servers.
But I can't do it anymore because... how did it even shut down? And no one was held accountable for it. No legal repercussions.
Then steam said you don't own the games they are selling to you
So you buy games that you don't really own with a 30% tax on the developer's paycheck on top of his local taxes, thanks Valve!
Before if you wanted to buy games you had to show up in person, so competition between corporations and mom and pops was limited to what a corporation was willing to spend on capex and staff for a new store. The internet destroyed that need and so now the costs of corporations to compete with more efficient services due to economies of scale is very low.
I'd love if they lowered their cut but as things are, no one even seems to be trying to seriously compete with them. All consoles and all other PC distribution platforms seem hell bent on hand curation through human intermediaries, which often comes down to rubbing elbows with the right people / impressing arbiters rather than just letting customers judge. Even itch.io does this for the promotion / discoverability part.
Mobile has a slew of its own problems but gets this basic thing right, too.
the value they provide you is by being a intermediary between you and your customers; it's pure intermediation, there's no disintermediation.
>"This French ruling flies in the face of established EU law which recognises the need to protect digital downloads from the ease of reproduction allowed by the Internet," said CEO Simon Little in a statement.
If you don't like this then stop using proprietary software.
False. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25371427
> You don't own any commercial, proprietary software sold to you.
I do own the commodity good (here: copy of the game) that I bought.
You were previously talking about licences and ownership of "any games". What you mentioned now is an orthogonal concept, and affects a subset of all games sold.
Depriving me of the use of my purchased good that way is fraud, of course. <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27348526>
You're purchased "good" was a license to use some software. That license defines the rules for using that software. If the license says they can remotely disable your game then they can remotely disable your game without violating the license or committing fraud.
There is of course some question about the enforcement of licenses, particularly click through licenses, but the legal doubt doesn't help due to the arbitration clauses in those same licenses and/or challenging them in court being ridiculously expensive.
Or, you know, change the law. It doesn't have to be this way.
And then they can plan for that by unlocking the games when they would sunset them.
They do this by killing the old version.
Very much this!
And furthermore the prices need to be significantly lower as well. No one pays to rent or lease an automobile what they would pay to purchase it. No one pays to rent or lease an apartment what the sum total cost of the building is.
If these companies want to pretend this is all just a rental then they need to accept no one will be willing to pay purchasing prices for those rentals.
Looking at you Microsoft Office, Quickbooks, and every Adobe product.
If you have disk space to spare, I would recommend downloading GOG’s offline installers as a backup. The risk of the service disappearing or games you’ve bought being removed seems pretty low, but DRM‐free offline installers are just as good as the classic “physical copy,” provided you actually saved them!
Better even as the classic physical copies often had DRM to prevent you from making backups. Not that there weren't workarounds but still, being able to just back them up like any other file is better in my book.
Unfortunately the "if you have disk space" part is not always irrelevant. Would be nicer if we could share that backup space by chunking up the installers into blocks and then advertise via a distributed table of hashes who has which blocks available. Ideally we'd also have a protocol to let these blocks of bits flow from those that have them to those that need them.
Ubisoft appears to be largely propped up by generous tax credit in French speaking parts of the world and I don't think its going to last.
Question is who stands to buy them out? Their market cap is way overvalued.
I miss the old days where you had to figure stuff out. Literally remember spending days in FF7 talking to everyone until it triggered an event. Frustrating but rewarding.
Situations like this will educate nobody about anything though. Many irate forum posts will be written, and the course of the world, and these people's lives will change about 0 percent. If gamers, as a group, would be able to learn anything, there wouldn't be hype for early access titles, or they wouldn't pre-order, but I'm not seeing either.
The actual best thing to happen to these franchises, in my view, is pirates freeing them from their corporate shackles that is DRM. This helps them to be actually relevant and to give people good experiences consistently - although, you could argue that this also helps them not sink into their well deserved irrelevance, so in the end piracy is helping to sell the original like in the case of Windows or Photoshop, or how people knowing the music drives the sale of concert tickets. Still, at least pirated copies can be used by the people who are genuinely missing the experience after the DRM servers inevitable shut down.
Personally, I stopped buying Ubisoft games years ago, because a month of their subscription service is cheaper than their games even at 75% off sales, and actually owning the game means nothing as this article demonstrates. I'm not sure how this business model is sustainable.
> Space Junkies is a notable outlier, as it launched three years ago. It's a multiplayer-only VR game, and for some reason, Ubisoft is still selling it (for as much as $20) without even mentioning that it will become completely unplayable in two months.
Wow.
Ah, great. So poor little Ubisoft doesn’t want to pay for the activation servers of Liberation HD and Liberation HD++. How nice of them to drop just the older, original version and not even offer the working remastered version to existing owners.
I can't believe they're not doing this. The remastered version is frequently on sale for just $20, and revoking access is clearly a PR nightmare.
If Ubisoft so dearly needs to shut down these servers, why not just gift existing owners the upgrade?
Sounds illegal if anyone is based in Australia and feels like giving the ACCC a nudge.
“This case sets an important precedent that overseas-based companies that sell to Australians must abide by our law. All goods come with automatic consumer guarantees that they are of acceptable quality and fit for the purpose for which they were sold, even if the business is based overseas,”
There may be some legal issues, but once Ubisoft does this on Sep. 1st, there are some technicalities surrounding vaporware and such that make it legal to 'own' the game without ever paying for it, etc and so forth. Running servers to make it playable again as well would also be fair-game as well as I understand it.
But I am not a lawyer, so if anyone knows better please by all means say so; but keep in mind I speak from the Canadian side of the law. So there may be differences that matter.
I think you actually mean "abandonware". But it wouldn't, either. I was part of the abandonware community for decades -- ah, good old Home of the Underdogs -- and the sad reality is that abandonware is not a legal term, and the legal owners of games long abandoned and forgotten are sometimes petty enough to actively prevent them from being made available or playable again.
It must also be said that other authors and publishers kindly make them available for free, or at least don't interfere with preservation efforts. But abandonware, as such, is not a legal thing and nobody is entitled to playing abandoned games :(
So the rights holder have no incentive to ever declare it "abandonware" nor give up on the IP, and rights last long enough that ignoring them for decades isn't enough to make them worthless.
Hmm... I could have sworn it was legal; but it looks like it's only legal once the copyright expires and nothing prior like failure to support...
Even then, all they have to do is do what Nintendo did with the e-shop.
That said, I think there is legal grounds to take these kinds of scenarios into court to attempt to get the laws changed. Maybe not in past decades, but the current situation with digital goods basically requires that abandonware be legal; lest we are just going to roll over and give in to these companies that only care about profits solely and only.
Yes, profits are important; but so is repaying your fanbase for their loyalty. They might not be able to keep these games running forever, but that shouldn't stop people from being able to do it for themselves.
That's my nickels worth on this matter.
...the rights to access and/or use any Content and Services accessible through Steam are referred to in this Agreement as "Subscriptions."
... The Content and Services are licensed, not sold. Your license confers no title or ownership in the Content and Services.
https://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement
To me, that's their business if they want to operate that way and folks can choose to accept that and be a customer if they so desire. I think what's really wrong is that nowhere on their store pages do they use the word "Subscription" and instead they use the word "Purchase". This should not be allowed and is false advertising, plain and simple.
Perfect.
> This should not be allowed and is false advertising
The result of false advertising is theft.
the consumer rights directive in the Uk/EU specifically states remedy (i.e.: refund) if vendors remove features from a purchased digital service
For example, the statement on Australia:
> FOR AUSTRALIAN SUBSCRIBERS, THIS SECTION 7 DOES NOT EXCLUDE, RESTRICT OR MODIFY THE APPLICATION OF ANY GUARANTEE, RIGHT OR REMEDY THAT CANNOT BE SO EXCLUDED, RESTRICTED OR MODIFIED, INCLUDING THOSE CONFERRED BY THE AUSTRALIAN CONSUMER LAW (ACL). UNDER THE ACL, GOODS COME WITH GUARANTEES INCLUDING A GUARANTEE THAT GOODS ARE OF ACCEPTABLE QUALITY. IF THERE IS A FAILURE OF THIS GUARANTEE, YOU ARE ENTITLED TO A REMEDY (WHICH MAY INCLUDE HAVING THE GOODS REPAIRED OR REPLACED OR A REFUND). IF A REPAIR OR REPLACEMENT CANNOT BE PROVIDED OR THERE IS A MAJOR FAILURE, YOU ARE ENTITLED TO A REFUND.
Which means that removing access to the purchased item, does in fact entitle you to a refund.
Even if you equate taking down DRM servers with breaking into someone's house and using a crowbar to break their widget, that's still a different crime than theft.
As mentioned in my previous comment, it would be wrong but not theft specifically. Someone breaking into my garage and smashing my car isn't theft, it's vandalism.
In fact, there is a good chance this would result in standardising the most basic aspects of online activity (license checks etc) into free opensource libraries, saving such corporations a decent amount of money in the long run.
You should draw your own conclusion as to what you spend your money on, and possibly you might conclude that "buying" online games that can be taken away from you at any time is a waste of money. But you can't go from there to "we must take away intellectual property from these capitalist swine!".
The nonsense is thinking that requiring certain interests to follow rules that benefit society, is "taking away intellectual property". Any such law would obviously not be retroactive, so any publisher could decide whether they want to produce any such online element going forward. If they do, they will know their work will have to be disclosed on a free license at the end - effectively working in the same way as patents.
> people need to stop putting up with it
What I'm going to say might sound paternalistic to you, but it's the truth: most people don't really think that hard, generally speaking, and certainly not when it comes to satisfying their entertainment needs. That's why we have laws to protect the general public from predatory behavior in finance, hospitality, etc etc.
This is predatory behavior, and it's now enacted at a scale that makes it parasitical - fleecing more and more money from the general consumer. A public response would be absolutely justified, in the same way it's absolutely justified what we're currently seeing going down with Apple's and Google's appstores.
Otherwise we will continue to sleepwalk in the cyberpunk dystopia where corporations own our lives in practice, while being 'free to choose' purely in theory.
But how can you possibly expect a law that takes away copyright of something they developed? That's insane, it'll never happen.
Apart from the theoreticals (expropriation exists, or we'd never get roads done), as I said above, it doesn't need to be retroactive. It's like laws for car manufacturers: new restrictions don't make old cars illegal, they just mandate how they should be produced going forward.
That shouldn't really be any harder than retroactively extending copyright, which has happened multiple times. Or is it just the rights of big corporations that can never be restricted again? If a new law makes certain undesirable behaviors illegal for individuals should that only apply to people born after that law? No.
Yes, retroactive copyright corrections will be harder to accomplish so, like the sibling comment suggests, we should focus on laws for new content for now. But we should also never froget that copyrighted content is NOT the property of the creator but of everyone. The I in "IP" is not redundant.
Seems legal in the US at least.
> Video games in the form of computer programs embodied in physical or downloaded formats that have been lawfully acquired as complete games, when the copyright owner or its authorized representative has ceased to provide access to an external computer server necessary to facilitate an authentication process to enable gameplay.”
As a society, we certainly can. So IP owners should carefully consider the possibilities here before robbing people blind. That some shiny 50-year-old copyrights you've got there - would be such a shame if they were all to suddenly expire, no? Congress has that power, and more.
This is an Ubisoft title, meaning, Steam is just a glorified launcher for Uplay which then launches the game itself. The only fault Steam has in this, is not being clearer in the store front (which is still Ubisoft editing).
Ubisoft is the one not providing refunds. Ubisoft is the one shutting down online servers. Ubisoft is the one who asked for it to be delisted.
There's a lot of things to be angry for against Steam, but this isn't it.
If I was them I would lock that down, because this is a bad look.
In any cause, the usual targets seem to be games with annual releases. Apparently, people love buying the same games over and over. While it sucks, this is clearly not on the same level as Blizzard shutting down StarCraft battle-net servers. Lots of people would be rightfully furious.
In my case, the last Ubi game I purches, and played, was released back in 2003. Hopefully that clears my stance on this particular company
It's bringing an inherent disadvantage of closed multi-player games to single player games.
What's the excuse for forcibly shutting down the single player experience though?
As I said above, I stopped dealing with this company a long, long time ago.
Do you mean in the sense of "people are still playing this game instead of buying my new game?". Probably. I would guess this is probably false though -- that people keep buying games for companies they perceive as consumer-friendly.
Or do you mean they lose money by providing customer support? They could just add a warning notice the game is no longer supported, and that you buy it (or play it) at your own risk.
It wouldn't be the first time companies make short-sighted decisions, though.
1. Service level agreement for n years explicitly stated at release?
2. Release a binary containing the bare necessites of the title's backend services (stripped of any analytics or proprietary stuff)?
3. Something else?
Whats frustrating is that studios and publishers (should) have an idea of what the lifetime cost for each player is, so they can price the game appropriately. I wish it were industry best practice for large studios to be transparent at release and state "we can support this game for a minimum of 10 years, if it's a hit, longer".
Server-side code might have proprietary components or code reused for other games, or a whole lot of complications which are difficult to extricate from a "free" release, and the company might just not want the bother. Releasing something always comes with expectations, just look at how much grief authors of free and open source code sometimes get from entitled users!
But yeah, I would love for game companies to release their servers once the commercial shelf life of a game has ended.
I think it's unrealistic to always expect this, though.
They already demand for example that bans for cheating only affect the multiplayer part of the game.
2. Service level agreement for n years explicitly stated at release? -> Actually Yes, If we are buying subscriptions I would like to see the terms of that subscription.
[0] ...the rights to access and/or use any Content and Services accessible through Steam are referred to in this Agreement as "Subscriptions."
... The Content and Services are licensed, not sold. Your license confers no title or ownership in the Content and Services.
The question is rather which of the EU customers will/can afford to sue Steam. My guess is they'll offer a refund for those games before it comes to a law suit.
I think things like GOG or Humble Bundle are better, because they don't "phone home" when you try to play games you bought there (unless, of course, they are actually Steam keys).
They could get delisted, but if you backed up the game you can still play it.
That said: what a crappy situation. Are they at least giving the money back to customers?
The licensing allows them to do things like this, but frankly, the odds of it happening is extremely low, like 1 in a thousand, and the lower prices make up for the risk.
Update: that was fast, my refund request was rejected because it has been “more than 2 weeks since my purchase”. I opened a new refund request with much more pointed language and told them it’ll be the most expensive $5 they ever stole. I’m fit to sue over this, it’s not even about the money. I have a large steam library and I do not want them to get away with this.
I guess you're in the US? (Judging from the use of $ and suing being the next step of escalation)
Would be interesting if individuals with Steam accounts in EU/UK/AU who "bought" the game and request a refund also report their experience, considering the differences in consumer protection.
Grr. Anyone else have a different experience?
Steam is not your friendly platform. It's hostile to customers. If you're positive you're correct and can afford the trouble and cost go the legal route.
The game companies won't offer managed game servers, because it's a totally new, small-market line of business outside their core competency. They won't open-source the server and let users run it themselves, because myriad licensing/IP/legalese reasons. Even if they did open source it, the stack likely isn't designed to scale down to a few bucks a month on the public cloud -- most users interested in running their own server wouldn't be happy with the actual cost of doing so. The handful of folks willing to pay for it won't move the needle.
Implementation aside, I think it’s primarily a money thing—the studios don’t care about this because the numbers say they shouldn’t.
Online-matchmaking becoming more and more centralized really made this starting to go away... It has both good and bad sides. One is much larger player pool and automated matchmaking. Other side is losing communities and more custom servers with custom maps...
i dont need a source code, i need a binary and a config file, some decent error logging and some basic documentation with how to get it running/common issues/requirements
that's it
If I owned a copy of this game on Steam I'd be requesting a refund immediately; they have been known to make exceptions to the standard 2-hours rule under special circumstances.
Also, Steam has a game files backup feature, it might be a good idea to use that and wait for someone to figure out how to disable Steam DRM
But now I wonder if devs would breach copyright/contract by distributing a cracked version, i.e. one that still "has" the DRM but also contains a logical workaround or something, essentially disclosing how to bypass it. (Even if the crack was already available on pirate sites)
The right to sell used games? They have paid a lot for this not to pass. 14 days of withdrawal not applying to games in the EU? Them.
Not that Epic games is any better.
I'm not buying games online anymore. I used to spend a lot when I had the income. It's a scam a scam that is covered up with dollar bills. Justicia is blind. In the EU you can buy everything if you have enough money. It goes without saying that the same is true in the US, but EU was supposed to be different, better. They're not. And Valve has bought laws and averted lawsuits with their monetary power.
It's kind of shocking this happening with a 10 year old game.
This whole online required for a single player game (because piracy) is really ridiculous. So many dumb things are done with DRM and the like because of "piracy". Remember DVD regions? The unskippable FBI warning? DVD "encryption"?
After 5-10 years games should just go DRM and server free. Not sure how we can enforce that without materially affecting sales however.
[1] https://www.techspot.com/news/95177-ubisoft-disable-online-f...
I’d like to think this would be an easy patch to at least let people down easy, but I don’t know much if anything at all in this context.
Why couldn’t they just release an “flick a switch off” update? And why would this be required in the first place?
I initially wanted to say it is a little cynical, but I am starting to think it is just fiscal prudence ( and customer can stuff itself really ).
Push an update to steam where DRM has been disabled. Arguably DRM has only ever inconvenienced legitimate users. Explain the situation saying it has reached end of life, so DRM protections will be disabled.
The developer/publisher gets this in return: - Good PR - No DRM server costs - Continued sale (/or make it PWYW and give proceeds to a cause).
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2022/07/god-of-war-ragnaroks-...
Edit: To clarify I have stopped buying any big titles on PC. I may splurge $2-5 on a key site but that's about it. I own console games because I want to leave my grandkids something.
Eventually got a working key after returning to the store and complaining vigorously, and then had to wait approximately a million hours for the game to update itself over our shit tier dialup connection and eventually become playable.
I stopped following and playing most AAA games at this point, but I was already getting older anyway. I still play video games, but I'm much more careful about the above such things.
Offline profiles were added at some point to alleviate this but, they could’ve just started with null profiles and saved all that, clearly GfWL adoption was more important.
The best way is to buy at https://www.gog.com/
They offer lot's of DRM-free games, even newer titles so you can actually own the games and back them up wherever and however you want.
If you bought this very same game on DVD, would it not still require same activation servers? It's my understanding this is ubisoft the publisher activation thing, not steam the delivery platform thing.
Install the game, 20 minutes later you were off.
Also, it was fun to find the bugs and found that sometimes they were useful in game.
It's a shame people don't really own games nowadays, isn't it?
https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/dealing-with-customers...
The industry is staring to make this normal.
Ubisoft is also a hot pile of mess with their Ubisoft buggy client that constantly needs an internet connection.
NFTs grafted on to web2 games is a start of player owned gaming, but true web3 games will be wholly player owned.
These shutdowns (along with things like Diablo's Error 37 launch) are why gamers will gravitate to games they can't get rug pulled on.
If so, then this is totally messed up, knowing that I have 300+ games on steam that can be removed one day without my consent. Even after I purchase it with my own money. Insane
Btw, why is this game delisted?
I'm pretty sure my older Vita cartridge of Liberation will keep on trucking too...
looks like they'll get purchased soon, microsoft behind the scene perhaps?