Is it considered breach of contract or advertising laws if a developer markets their game as releasing on digital store A, but then chooses store B? Recently, there's a lot of commotion in the PC gaming market over the Epic Game Store, a new digital-only PC games store and platform which is trying to break into the market. A lot of PC gamers are criticising Epic, the store owner, for being anti-consumer, because instead of providing some kind of benefit over competing platforms, Epic is simply using the large amounts of money they earn with their cash cow game (Fortnite) to bribe 3rd party developers to release their games as timed exclusives on the objectively inferior Epic platform, so they release first on the Epic store and then a year later on other platforms. Now, some of these games have been marketed as releasing on Steam, the biggest gaming platform right now, as well as other PC gaming platforms, either through marketing material or through statements made on crowdfunding platforms used to fund the development of the game. For example, a game called The Outer Worlds, was clearly marked as releasing on Steam in promotional material. and as another example, the game Phoenix Point explicitly stated in the launch FAQ for the crowdfunding campaign on Fig(https://www.fig.co/campaigns/phoenix-point/about) that the game would be releasing on Steam and GOG. To me as a non-lawyer, this seems fishy and maybe even breach of contract and/or advertising laws. Phoenix Point backers could have based their decision on whether to back the game based on the promised Steam release. Does a situation like this constitute breach of contract and/or a violation of advertising laws? Note that while this is tagged United States, I also welcome legal responses from other jurisdictions given the international nature of the Internet.
Does a situation like this constitute breach of contract and/or a violation of advertising laws? No. There is not enough information that would lead to a finding of either. It is unclear how customers would be allegedly affected (if at all) by the release of a product at a different store, let alone where the goods or services at issue are digital and require no physical presence at a venue or premise. Except for very specific factual circumstances, a change of sales venue would hardly be cognizable as deceptive or unfair practice. Also, prior to purchasing or reserving a game, there is no contract between the public and the developer/supplier. Potential customers typically are not entitled to a specific performance by the developer. Even if [Phoenix Point] supporters' decision were provably based on the prospect of release at Steam, your description nowhere reflects that there was a mutually conscious exchange (or promise of an exchange) of considerations involving the parties' support of a game and the counterparty's release of the game at a specific venue. Absent that meeting of the minds, either party's reliance or expectation on the other is irrelevant. Generally speaking, the sole cruciality of either party's motives does not create legal obligations.
The sale of in-game resources for real-world money is usually disallowed explicitly by a game's terms of service. One notable case was Blizzard's successful injunction against Peons4Hire, a World of Warcraft gold farming company. Setting aside terms-of-use considerations (which vary by game/platform), the sale of virtual goods for real money is broadly legal. Wikipedia has a short list of jurisdictions with notable decisions on virtual sales; see the page's references for the official news stories or government documents. Most of the rulings have been positive for virtual-goods vendors, though China has banned the sale of real items for virtual currency (the opposite of your proposed plan) and South Korea has banned the sale of virtual goods for real money outright. Such sales incur normal tax responsibilities, just as any other income does. I don't know if any jurisdictions have imposed special legislation that place income limits or special tax rates for income from the sale of virtual goods. In the case of Steam specifically, the sale of virtual goods is broadly disallowed in Section 2.G of the Steam Subscriber Agreement, but narrowly allowed in Section 3.D. All virtual Steam goods remain the property of Steam, and you have a license to use them, which includes sale in limited circumstances. The prohibition in Section 2.G reads: G. Restrictions on Use of Content and Services ...you are not entitled to: (i) sell, grant a security interest in or transfer reproductions of the Content and Services to other parties in any way, nor to rent, lease or license the Content and Services to others without the prior written consent of Valve, except to the extent expressly permitted elsewhere in this Agreement (including any Subscription Terms or Rules of Use); ... And the narrow permission to perform trades in the Community Marketplace in Section 3.D (per the above &quot;except to the extent expressly permitted elsewhere in this Agreement&quot; exception of 2.G): D. Trading and Sales of Subscriptions Between Subscribers Steam may include one or more features or sites that allow Subscribers to trade, sell or purchase certain types of Subscriptions (for example, license rights to virtual items) with, to or from other Subscribers (“Subscription Marketplaces”). An example of a Subscription Marketplace is the Steam Community Market. You can use the Steam Community Market to trade items for real money; this kind of real-money sale is explicitly allowed and facilitated by Steam. Separately, you can also trade giftable games (N.B.: game trading does not support real money) using Steam's trading system. Applying terms to a game-trade (like requiring payment external to Stream's trading system) appears to be disallowed by the broad prohibition in 2.G, but it's not very clear. The mechanical transfer of the game from one account to another is allowed, but the fact that it is actually a sale in a way that is not explicitly allowed seems to make it against the terms of service. I have no idea to what degree this is enforceable nor to what degree Steam polices against trades that involve Stream-external money transfers (though a cursory search of conversations in the Steam forums suggests they might not care very much).
In the case of McKee v. Isle of Capri Casinos, we can tell because that case has been legally decided. As the court says, there was a contract and "the patron was not entitled to the bonus under those rules", and plaintiff "failed to prove the necessary elements of either promissory or equitable estoppel". They did not "represent to her that a bonus would be available if she played the game", and did not "promise to pay the $41 million after the notice was displayed". The (very complex) rules of the game are easily available on the machine, and there is a prominent disclaimer that "MALFUNCTION VOIDS ALL PAYS AND PLAYS". Under the rules, the winning configuration stated that she was entitled to $1.85. The problem was that it also announced "Bonus Award - $41797550.16". This was due to an inexplicable software error which in communicating with the central computer awarded a "legacy bonus", which is no part of the game in question. The maximum legacy bonus is $99999.99; the manufacturer knows of the possibility of this kind of error and has implemented a fix that is thought to eliminate the problem. The first point then is that the casino didn't just claim there was a malfunction, they proved that there was one. Second, the terms of the contract hold: she was entitled to $1.85, and the extraneous message was not part of the contract. That is, she did not actually win the large payout, the malfunction was in saying that she received a bonus. If a patron could likewise prove that they had actually won but the machine malfunctioned to represent the situation as a loss, they would of course be entitled to the appropriate winnings. The problem simply resides in the difficulty of a patron proving that.
The European laws have specific sections regarding digital goods. The following two passages are relevant to you: From Returning unwanted goods: Warning! Please note that you may not use goods that you have received before deciding to withdraw from the purchase. The right to withdraw exists to allow you to examine the product in the same way as you would in a shop, not to give you 14 days free use. Be aware also that more specific rules apply to digital content (e.g. downloading or streaming music or video). From Shopping online: Digital content Specific information requirements apply when you buy digital content online, e.g. when downloading or streaming music or video. Before you make the purchase, you must also be informed how the content operates with relevant hardware/software (interoperability) and about its functionality, including whether any geographical restrictions apply to the use of the content and if private copies are allowed. You also enjoy the right of withdrawal within 14 days from concluding the contract for online digital content. However, once you start downloading or streaming the content you may no longer withdraw from the purchase, provided that the trader has complied with his obligations. Specifically, the trader must first obtain your explicit agreement to the immediate download or streaming, and you must explicitly acknowledge that you lose your right to withdraw once the performance has started. So yes, the law specifically allows you to waive that right when purchasing digital goods. So long as Steam has correctly advertised the product's system requirements and other key details, you lose your right to withdraw from the purchase the moment you start downloading it to your system.
This is similar to giving a hammer and needing to state to one is not responsible if the taker uses it to hit their head with. I believe this is the wrong analogy to use here. It would be more like giving somebody a hammer and saying you are not responsible if the head flies off and injures you. There is a concept in &quot;things&quot; you obtain called &quot;fitness for purpose&quot;, so if you download open-source software like a registry cleaner, and it deletes your entire registry, the &quot;WTFPL&quot; doesn't absolve the authors of liability. Explicitly denying any kind of &quot;fitness for purpose&quot; or warranty helps shield the author from legal claims (even if they are meritless) because it kills it out of the gate. It's possible that the WTFPL license granter/author could still be sued and have to defend themselves in court because it isn't explicitly stated that there is no warranty or fitness for purpose. Open source does not mean that it's &quot;use at your own risk&quot;, which is why there are so many types of licenses and disclaimers. From comments: Thank you for this very clear answer. Does the fact that someone willingly retrieves free code with no control of the provider changes anything? (vs a software vendor which provides code suitable for A and B, in exchange for money) I think closer to your hammer analogy where I would sue the producer of hammer XXX, a hammer I found on the street or which was given to me without involvement of vendor XXX. No, this doesn't change anything. The software vendor here is the person who writes the code, even if they don't charge for it. They are the ones who license the software and they are the ones who take some level of responsibility for it. In this case, the software author is the &quot;hammer producer&quot; that you would sue... If you buy &quot;Registry Cleaner XL&quot; from Best Buy and it bricks your computer, you don't sue Best Buy, you sue the person who authored the software. In pretty much every case, the author is the responsible party, not the vendor, and it is the author who licenses it, not the vendor (the vendor just acts as an intermediary).
With respect to the two-year guarantee for faulty products, The Consumer Sales Directive does not apply to non-tangible products like softwares delivered by internet. (b) consumer goods: shall mean any tangible movable item, with the exception of: Relevant rules on faulty digital services are contained in the Digital Content Directive, which provides In the case of a lack of conformity, the consumer shall be entitled to have the digital content or digital service brought into conformity, to receive a proportionate reduction in the price, or to terminate the contract, under the conditions set out in this Article. The consumer shall be entitled to have the digital content or digital service brought into conformity, unless this would be impossible or would impose costs on the trader that would be disproportionate, taking into account all the circumstances of the case including: (a) the value the digital content or digital service would have if there were no lack of conformity; and (b) the significance of the lack of conformity. However, this is essentially irrelevant for free apps where no reduction of price is possible and it is likely an obligation to fix the app is disproportional given the price is zero. Notably, the directive also puts most responsibilities regarding the &quot;digital environment&quot; (e.g. computers and network costs) on the consumer, as the environment is not particularly tied to the digital service. In your comment, you refer to a 14-day rule. You might be confusing the guarantee laws with the cooling-off period provided by the Consumer Rights Directive. In that case, you have a right of withdrawal but are only entitled to the costs you paid to the trader, and not any other third party, which is zero in the case of free apps. In an analogy to physical goods ordered online, you don't get a refund for your bus ticket if you need to go to the post office to collect it. By the way, Google terms cannot override public law and in fact if you look into Google refund policy you'll see that EU laws are specifically mentioned.
would it be interpreted in favor of the person who did not draft the terms? Yes, provided that the interpretation is reasonable. That is known as the doctrine of contra proferentem. Here, the term "deliverables and associated documents" might entail a contradiction if that term [allegedly or literally] encompasses "source code or content". That depends on what definition(s) of "deliverables and associated documents" can be adduced from the contract. The term could refer to items that are not "source code or content", such as the binary files (i.e., executables and DLLs), instructions &amp; documentation on how to operate and troubleshoot the application, and so forth. In that case, there would be no contradiction because there is no overlap between these items and the source code. if term A) is written on line 10 and term B) is written on line 11, is it resonable to assume term B) takes precedence or modifies term A? No. The sequence of clauses/terms itself does not determine which one outweighs or qualifies the other. Instead, the language used in the contract is indicative of the parties' intent and therefore how the terms of that contract relate to each other.
Alice has been developing her own enhancements, and they're pretty similar to Bob's. Neither Alice nor Bob has copied the other's enhancements, so neither has violated the other's copyright in the enhancements. Whether that could be proved in court is another matter, of course, but since the original work is licensed under creative commons the question unlikely to arise in court. Would Alice be prevented from coming up with enhancements to her own game if other people could prove they thought of and released the idea first? No. Copyright does not protect ideas. It only protects a particular expression of those ideas from being copied. Theoretically, if two authors come up with identical 500-word descriptions of something and can establish that each did so independently, neither has a claim against the other. The practical problem there, of course, is that it would be impossible to prove such a thing. Could Alice outright claim Bob's "Adapted Material" because he developed it on her original work? Assuming that in publishing his adaptations Bob followed the terms of the creative commons license with respect to the original work, Alice's only claim would be that he copied her adaptations without following the terms of the license. If Bob can show that he did not do so, her claim would fail. In a comment, you wrote: Suppose Alice went ahead and intentionally, somehow provably ripped off Bob's "Adapted Material" because she liked the content so much, does Bob reserve any rights on his adaptation, or is Alice able to commercialize the work that Bob did in extending her original work? If we assume that Bob complied with the license of the original material, we know that he licensed his adaptations under "the identical terms," so Alice would be able to use Bob's adaptations under those terms for non-commercial purposes. Since the assumption here is that Alice provably copied something of Bob's, I think it is fairly clear that she would be liable for damages if she exploited that material commercially without paying royalties.