Warner Bros. Now Deleting Games

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Stuff like this is just part of us accepting the conveniences of platforms like Steam compared to owning a disc we can install the game from. Though even when I was buying games on DVD I would find that it was nothing more than a placeholder while it connected that game to Steam or Origin, etc. GOG is great since you can just download the offline installer.

 

[Morrus]

There is no fundamental human right to own IP.

Like most laws, there is a legal right to own IP, because we as a society made that right. By that argument 99% of laws are invalid.

What there isn't is a fundamental entitlement to somebody else's creations. They can sell it to you or not. Just like anything else they own. I don't get why somebody would feel entitled to the fruits of somebody else's labour.

I mean, if we're literally going to turn this debate into the morality of whether or not IP should be owned at all, that's a very different conversation (and if so I'll leave you to it, because it's beyond the scope of what I was commenting on and a much bigger conversation than I have the bandwidth--or interest--for right now).

 

[FrogReaver]

Like most laws, there is a legal right to own IP, because we as a society made that right. By that argument 99% of laws are invalid.

You are using the word ‘right’ differently than me.

What there isn't is a fundamental entitlement to somebody else's creations. They can sell it to you or not. Just like anything else they own. I don't get why somebody would feel entitled to the fruits of somebody else's labour.

It’s not entitlement to suggest new IP laws when the purpose of the current IP laws isn’t being fulfilled.

I mean, if we're literally going to turn this debate into the morality of whether or not IP should be owned at all, that's a very different conversation (and if so I'll leave you to it, because it's beyond the scope of what I was commenting on and a much bigger conversation than I have the bandwidth--or interest--for right now).

Odd framing. My argument is not whether IP should be ownable. Its in what circumstances it should cease to be owned - and its not without precedent - already works become public domain in certain circumstances.

All good if that’s not a discussion you want to have.

 

[Cadence]

We give intellectual property protections to company’s so they can be incentivized to create content (and make money from it). I think they should lose IP rights if they have made something publicly available and then chose to stop making the material available, at least after some reasonable time frame.

Clearly the IP rights aren’t doing them or the end user any good in that scenario.

If you've released it publicly and then don't do anything with it for like ten years?

Yeah?

It would stop corporations buying stuff just to bury their competition at least. You remember the Dragonquest RPG? TSR made sure you didn't.

How does this work for painters? If I make a painting of something does selling prints count as still using it? What price do I have to sell the prints for? If I'm a photographer does that mean I can't make anything one of a kind and that everything I post anywhere is fair game after 10 years (or whatever is shorter than todays time)?

Or is this only for companies and not individuals? (If so, what size of company? Is a sole-proprietership LLC a company or an individual?)

If it is for companies, how does it work for photography studios that get permission to use a sample of someones wedding pictures for advertising? Do they need to sell that to the general public?

Do computer companies need to keep distributing ancient operating systems with known bugs? If I don't make an old commodore 64 game anymore is everyone entitled to make a newer version of it if I don't offer the old one? Is it enough if I just offer the game for a system that effectively no one has (is that still making use of it)? If a publisher made an updated version of a book do they have to keep selling the old one or let someone else publish it, or does the new version count as still doing stuff with it? Does selling 5e count as making use of D&D so they don't need to sell 4e?

If something only exists for sale as compiled code, can I delete the source?

 

[FrogReaver]

How does this work for painters? If I make a painting of something does selling prints count as still using it?

I don’t think the same rule needs to apply to one of a kind art.

What price do I have to sell the prints for? If I'm a photographer does that mean I can't make anything one of a kind and that everything I post anywhere is fair game after 10 years (or whatever is shorter than today’s time)?

Did you make your photo available to the general public for purchase/license and then cease to do so?

Or is this only for companies and not individuals? (If so, what size of company? Is a sole-proprietership LLC a company or an individual?)

For everyone.

If it is for companies, how does it work for photography studios that get permission to use a sample of someone’s wedding pictures for advertising? Do they need to sell that to the general public?

If it’s not being sold to the general public then it wouldn’t apply.

Do computer companies need to keep distributing ancient operating systems with known bugs?

No. This is not a mandate to distribute. But if they want to keep IP protections it would require them to keep that ancient OS available somewhere. If they don’t want to do that then this allows someone else to do so.

If I don't make an old commodore 64 game anymore is everyone entitled to make a newer version of it if I don't offer the old one?

Not what I had in mind but it is something that would need thought through.

Is it enough if I just offer the game for a system that effectively no one has (is that still making use of it)?

Under this rule the old game system could also be recreated for sale. So not really an issue.

If a publisher made an updated version of a book do they have to keep selling the old one or let someone else publish it, or does the new version count as still doing stuff with it?

Seems like it would depend on the amount and nature of changes between the different versions.

Does selling 5e count as making use of D&D so they don't need to sell 4e?

No. 4e is substantially different than 5e.

If something only exists for sale as compiled code, can I delete the source?

Sure, unless you distributed the source as well. The bigger issue with software is dependencies for it to work properly.

 

[Kaodi]

If only the Batgirl movie had an alternative tax break scheme like: you can release it, but you cannot license anything from it, and you must make it available for free to all streaming platforms. So they would not be entitled to make money from it, but as a piece of art and the work output of the production staff it would still exist.

 

[Dire Bare]

To address this briefly-

Not everything has the same explanation. I wish people would try and understand this simply concept. Or, put more simply, a company can do X, Y, and Z, and you can dislike X, Y, and Z ... but they may have completely different reasons for doing X, Y, and Z ... and they don't all fall under the rubric of, "Because they're evil and hate you."

I mean, it might be the case, but still...

Now, if you ever read my previous regularly updated power rankings on the streaming wars (now discontinued due to lack of interest), you'd know that I dislike Zaslav and believe that the Discovery/Warner merger has largely been disastrous for many reasons. That said, you can't just put all of their actions in a single bucket. Here's a quick breakdown-

A. Not releasing completed movies (Batgirl, etc.). This was purely for tax reasons. As part of the post-merger restructuring, they wrote off almost $2 billion. Why Batgirl in particular? This also went to a pivot in strategy- Batgirl was originally going to be a streaming-only movie. But now, they are concentrating on movies with theatrical releases prior to streaming. They determined that Batgirl was not going to make money theatrically to recoup the expenditure, so instead wrote it off. In addition, to get the tax benefit, they can't show it to the public.

B. Removing shows and movies from streaming. This was both for tax reasons (see, e.g., American Pickle), but also due to contracts and residuals. Some shows (in their determination) cost them more to keep on the streaming platform than it was worth to them.

Understanding why they were making these decisions is simple-go to the incentives. There are three main factors at play-

1. Wall Street suddenly reversed course and demanded profitability from the streamers, not acquisition of new subscribers, which impacted stock prices and has impacted all of the companies with a major streaming component.

2. The new company has a massive debt burden, and has been working to reduce that debt burden.

3. And, of course, Zaslav changed his compensation scheme so that he was no longer rewarded by share price, but by free cash. I mean .... c'mon!

Viewed in this light, everything they are doing has made sense. It is why, for example, Max is licensing the "crown jewels" (major movies like Dune and HBO series) to other streamers, like Netflix. Because MONEY. And it's why they are cutting back on other things-like unprofitable legacy gaming.

In short, it does suck. But as we have learned repeatedly (and as everyone should know) .... there are no rights to streaming from the consumer. Yes, it is wonderful that we get these vast libraries of content that are available, but you really shouldn't depend on any particular thing being available. If you read through the linked article, you will see that they are allowing the games' creators to continue publishing on their own. Now, maybe this will resolve in other ways, and that would be great. But given that the "journalism-like" substance tries to claim that the process would take two minutes at the most ... which confuses and understates the technical process for the internal legal review that would have to occur ... I doubt that there is any real attempt to understand what is going on.

Good analysis, but . . . I don't care about how rational, from a business perspective, WB's decisions might be. WB is prioritizing profits over people, profits over art. Certainly not a unique stance for a large corporation to take, but one that I find short-sighted and problematic. And one that I think will hurt WB in the long run . . . likely after it's current CEO takes his golden parachute and flies away . . .

 

[Dire Bare]

I’m of two minds about this.

On the one hand, it does suck.

On the other hand, nobody should be obligated to sell something to you for all eternity until the heat death of the universe. Creating something shouldn’t automatically create any such obligation (or entitlement). If they want to stop selling something, they don’t have to.

If they’re taking away things you’ve ‘bought’ digitally that’s another story. I don’t think that’s good behaviour at all.

But the way the title is phrased — “deleted” is the wrong word. “Not selling it to you right now” is not the same as deleting something. The thing still exists. If you bought it in some way and have a local copy, you still have it. Or a physical copy. But yeah, it sucks if you happen to want to buy the thing that’s no longer available.

WB certainly has the right to do business as they see fit. But their decisions are problematic because WB is in the art business, or they exist within the intersection of art and business. The decisions they make affect more than simply their bottom line, but the art produced as movies or games, and the artists behind those projects.

Does a company have some sort of moral obligation to protect the art they produce or fund? Well, not within our current society, for sure. But that is one of my (many) problems with modern society, the prioritization of profits over people and profits over art.

WB could find a way to release those completed (and nearly completed) films and still make a profit, a ridiculous profit. They could find a way to keep these movies and games available to the public, and still make ridiculous profits (if perhaps not always by specific project). But they can make a greater profit by playing "Hollywood accounting" and shuttering completed and already released projects, so they do.

I think this is short-sighted of WB and will hurt them in the long run. We'll see. But things likely won't fundamentally change unless forced by societal changes . . . so, not going to hold my breath.

 

[Dire Bare]

Will it still be available to be played by those who have it on Steam though?

This is the most important point, IMO.

If a game is simply no longer available for purchase, that's disapointing and frustrating.

If a game I already purchased is deleted from my Steam library, I'm going to be pissed off and looking to join a class-action lawsuit.

Either way, it makes me leery of purchasing or supporting WB projects going forward.

 

[Campbell]

This is certainly a bad look for them as a publisher, particularly the part where they are not open to returning the rights to the products in question to the development studios responsible for the games that are being removed from the market thereby closing said developers off from residual income associated with the games in question. It's their right, but treating creatives like that is no bueno in my book.