Virtual Legality

By Richard HoegNews Leisure Video Games News Commentary

Virtual Legality episodes

May 16, 2019 Azure Dreams: A Lawyer's Thoughts on the Microsoft/Sony Gaming Alliance (VL58)
null
(0:00) Intro
(1:17) The News
(2:52) The Press Release
(7:10) What is Azure
(8:12) Cloud Computing
(11:30) Press Release
(12:51) Memorandum of Understanding
(19:10) quid pro quo
(26:25) conclusion
30 min
May 15, 2019 Did Ubisoft Deceptively Advertise The Division 2? A Lawyers View (VL57)
When Ubisoft announced the long awaited release of "raid" level content for its hit game The Division 2 this week, it did so with one major caveat: the game would not support matchmaking for this new content.
While concerning enough for those interested in matchmaking, the issue is more than simply one of disappointment, as Ubisoft had solicited sales for the game by releasing marketing materials which made it clear that the game would support matchmaking "for all activities and at all difficulties".
Is Ubisoft's claim that The Division 2 would support matchmaking "deceptive advertising" as that term is understood by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)?
How likely is it that purchasers of the game could bring a claim against Ubisoft, and what could they get if they succeed?
And, at bare minimum, when will live service providers realize that roadmaps and express promises of future content/functionality just simply aren't a good idea given normal developmental challenges?
Don't be deceived, it's time for Virtual Legality.
CORRECTION: The second site (Division Zone) referred to by me in this video as an official Ubisoft source, is, in fact, an unofficial site which collected and commented on officially released information. As such, my comments regarding Ubisoft being responsible for taking down or altering such site do not apply. That said, the information discussed on such site (like the information discussed by Kotaku) *was* officially released by Ubisoft, and its presence on such site goes to how effective Ubisoft was at disseminating this information to the base of fans who might otherwise purchase The Division 2. All other portions of my commentary remain applicable, and I apologize for the error.
CHECK OUT THE VIDEO AT:
#Division2 #DeceptiveAdvertising #VirtualLegality
***
Discussed in this episode:
"The Division 2's First Raid Won't Have Matchmaking, Even Though Ubisoft Implied It Would"
Kotaku - May 15, 2019 - Stephen Totilo
(https://kotaku.com/the-division-2s-first-raid-wont-have-matchmaking-even-1834784141)
"The Division 2’s Improved Online Experience and Anti-Cheat Measures"
"Division Zone" - February 16, 2019
(https://division.zone/2019/02/16/the-division-2s-improved-online-experience-and-anti-cheat-measures/)
"Advertising FAQ's: A Guide for Small Business"
Federal Trade Commission
(https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/advertising-faqs-guide-small-business)
***
FOR MORE CHECK US OUT: https://youtu.be/tiPJTORwhdE
On Twitter @hoeglaw
At our website: https://hoeglaw.com/
On our Blog, "Rules of the Game", at https://hoeglaw.wordpress.com/
On "Help Us Out Hoeg!" a regular segment on the Easy Allies Podcast (formerly GameTrailers)
(https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZrxXp1reP8E353rZsB3jaA)
Biweekly on "Inside the Huddle with Michael Spath" on WTKA 1050
32 min
May 15, 2019 Did Ubisoft Deceptively Advertise The Division 2? A Lawyer's View (VL57)
null
(0:00) Opening
(16:06) The Federal Trade Commission Act
(17:48) What Makes an Advertisement Deceptive
(19:21) How Does the Ftc Determine if an Ad Is Deceptive
(21:41) Company Can Support the Ad
(22:02) How Does the Ftc Decide What Cases To Bring
(24:01) What Penalties Can Be Imposed
(26:55) Corrective Advertising Disclosures
32 min
May 13, 2019 Did The Supreme Court Just Kill Console Games? A Lawyer Reads "Apple Inc V Pepper" (VL56)
It's rare that we read through Supreme Court cases here on Virtual Legality, but when the implications are as potentially significant as those in today's holding in "Apple Inc v Pepper", well, we had to dive in.
In Apple Inc v Pepper, the Supreme Court has found that under the United States antitrust laws Apple *can* be sued by purchasers of phones and tablets for damages arising out Apple's 30% "cut" of App Store developer revenues.
But what does that really mean for the future of the Apple App Store? For the immediate future of Apple and the iPhone and iPad? And why should Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony all be paying very close attention?
Who made the decision, and why is this particular 5-4 split so interesting?
Why could the Court's contract law based findings hold the answer for all game and software platform creators?
And what does the dissent have to say about all of this?
It's Supreme Court time for Virtual Legality.
CHECK OUT THE VIDEO AT: https://youtu.be/urSG6eltMxk
#Apple #SupremeCourt #VirtualLegality
***
Discussed in this episode:
"Apple Inc. v. Pepper"
Supreme Court of the United States - May 13, 2019
(https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-204_bq7d.pdf)
***
FOR MORE CHECK US OUT:
On Twitter @hoeglaw
At our website: https://hoeglaw.com/
On our Blog, "Rules of the Game", at https://hoeglaw.wordpress.com/
On "Help Us Out Hoeg!" a regular segment on the Easy Allies Podcast (formerly GameTrailers)
(https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZrxXp1reP8E353rZsB3jaA)
Biweekly on "Inside the Huddle with Michael Spath" on WTKA 1050
55 min
May 13, 2019 SPOILERS - Game Of Thrones S8E5: "The Bells" - Postmortem Reactions (Hoeg Law)
***SPOILER WARNING: All Postmortem videos and podcasts contain SPOILERS***
Chaos may be a ladder, but Madness is a Mountain on Episode 5 of the final season of Game of Thrones: "The Bells".
What works and doesn't work?
What fate befalls fan favorites characters?
Why is Tyrion always, always wrong (at least since the showrunners ran out of book material)?
Why is Jamie's arc the most tragic (and ill-conceived) of the entire show?
What did Dany do and why?
And how did almost 8 full seasons of the series all lead up to this (no, really, how)?
A lot to discuss, on what is quickly starting to feel more like an autopsy than a postmortem.
CHECK OUT THE VIDEO AT: https://youtu.be/teyIfKoG8dU
#GameofThrones #Season8 #Episode5
PODCAST VERSIONS AVAILABLE AT
Spotify:
(https://open.spotify.com/show/3qsDhQ7h6BR2wLyNQYDWB4)
iTunes:
(https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/virtual-legality/id1448785539?mt=2)
SoundCloud:
(https://soundcloud.com/user-510342404)
Google Play Music:
(https://play.google.com/music/listen#/ps/In3d7qersx72lvzehxo7gu6cd5u)
***
FOR MORE CHECK US OUT:
On Twitter @hoeglaw
At our website: https://hoeglaw.com/
On our Blog, "Rules of the Game", at https://hoeglaw.wordpress.com/
On "Help Us Out Hoeg!" a regular segment on the Easy Allies Podcast (formerly GameTrailers)
(https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZrxXp1reP8E353rZsB3jaA)
Biweekly on "Inside the Huddle with Michael Spath" on WTKA 1050
1 hr
May 13, 2019 Did the Supreme Court Just Kill Console Games? A Lawyer Reads Apple Inc v Pepper (VL56)
null
55 min
May 12, 2019 Variety! Waypoint! Kotaku! Write - Offs Shutdowns Layoffs And Restructuring A Lawyer's Perspective
On May 10th, 2019, Variety Gaming's Brian Crecente announced via Twitter that Variety Gaming would be "reassessed" after E3 and he would no longer have a job.
On May 6th, 2019 Waypoint announced that it was losing it's name and domain and folding into parent media company Vice.
On April 8, 2019, Kotaku (along with the rest of the Gizmodo group) was sold to a Private Equity Firm.
Whether or not you like or agree with the output of any of these outlets, it is undoubtedly clear that coverage of the industry is changing and will continue to change.
What is happening and why?
What does it mean that Disney has given its Vice investment a complete "write off"?
How does it effect channels like this one?
And why should you very much care?
After all, Variety *is* the spice of life.
It's time for Virtual Legality.
CHECK OUT THE VIDEO AT: https://youtu.be/wGzsxJg13Q8
#VarietyGaming #Waypoint #Journalism
***
Discussed in this episode:
"What We Can Learn From a Game Studio Co-Founder’s Public Tirade"
Variety Gaming - May 10, 2019 - Michael Futter
(https://variety.com/2019/gaming/columns/what-we-can-learn-from-a-game-studio-co-founders-public-tirade-1203211122/)
"I see word is getting out about Variety Gaming. Good news bad news."
Tweet from Brian Crecente - May 10, 2019
(https://twitter.com/crecenteb/status/1126943334503735296)
"Waypoint Is Joining the New VICE [dot] com"
Waypoint - May 6, 2019 - Austin Walker
(https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3k3b9k/waypoint-is-joining-the-new-vicecom)
"Disney put more than $400 million into Vice Media. Now it says that investment is worthless."
Vox - May 8, 2019 - Peter Kafka
(https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/5/8/18537617/disney-vice-write-off-400-million)
Walt Disney Company Form 10-Q
For the quarterly period ended March 30, 2019
(https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1744489/000174448919000100/fy2019q210qdoc.htm)
"Write-Down"
Investopedia - Updated March 31, 2019
(https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/writedown.asp)
***
FOR MORE CHECK US OUT:
On Twitter @hoeglaw
At our website: https://hoeglaw.com/
On our Blog, "Rules of the Game", at https://hoeglaw.wordpress.com/
On "Help Us Out Hoeg!" a regular segment on the Easy Allies Podcast (formerly GameTrailers)
(https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZrxXp1reP8E353rZsB3jaA)
Biweekly on "Inside the Huddle with Michael Spath" on WTKA 1050
29 min
May 10, 2019 Virtual Legality 55 - MT Words: The Legal Issues Posed By Senator's Proposed Microtransaction Ban
On May 8, 2019, Senator Josh Hawley announced his plan to introduce a bill in the United States Senate that would see the prohibition of "loot boxes" and "pay-to-win" mechanics from games targeting children.
Light on facts and light on specifics, the announcement itself left much to be desired (and explained), but that didn't stop numerous industry outlets from reporting on the proposal.
What does it mean for a game to target children?
How does the existing Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) play in to Senator Hawley's plans?
Why might reliance on that act be deficient, and could the current understanding of "gaming" in Congress result in total prohibition?
Why should responsible folks who otherwise enjoy loot boxes be prevented from using them in games with "Candy-land aesthetics"?
Why does Senator Hawley target Candy Crush when reports show that the game is primarily played by women over the age of majority?
And what are other things that folks don't like (but still shouldn't be banned).
It's time for Virtual Legality.
CHECK OUT THE VIDEO AT: https://youtu.be/Cd_j0qb7amY
FOR MORE ON...
(1)LOOT BOX BANS
"Virtual Legality #2 - Will the FTC *Really* Ban Loot Boxes? (Hoeg Law)"
(https://youtu.be/PGhikKvy2Ns)
"Virtual Legality #3 - IGDA Calls the Industry to Act on Loot Boxes (Hoeg Law)"
(https://youtu.be/qb6r1DzDhsE)
(2) GOVERNMENT
"Virtual Legality #7 - Gaming, Government, and You (Hoeg Law)"
(https://youtu.be/gQ_sJi07oV4)
#LootBox #Ban #VirtualLegality
***
Discussed in this episode:
"U.S. Senator Introduces Bill To Ban Loot Boxes And Pay-To-Win Microtransactions"
Kotaku - May 8, 2019 - Jason Schreier
(https://kotaku.com/u-s-senator-introduces-bill-to-ban-loot-boxes-and-pay-1834612226)
Legislation Sponsored by Josh Hawley
Official Website of the U.S. Congress
(https://www.congress.gov/member/josh-hawley/H001089?q=%7B%22sponsorship%22%3A%22sponsored%22%7D)
The Protecting Children from Abusive Games Act - Summary
(https://www.hawley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2019-05/2019-05-08_Protecting-Children-Abusive-Games-Act_One-Pager.pdf)
"CHILDREN'S ONLINE PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT (COPPA)"
15 U.S.C. 91
http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title15-chapter91&saved=%7CZ3JhbnVsZWlkOlVTQy1wcmVsaW0tdGl0bGUxNS1zZWN0aW9uNjUwMQ%3D%3D%7C%7C%7C0%7Cfalse%7Cprelim&edition=prelim)
"PART 312—CHILDREN'S ONLINE PRIVACY PROTECTION RULE"
Rules Promulgated under COPPA
(https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=4939e77c77a1a1a08c1cbf905fc4b409&node=16%3A1.0.1.3.36&rgn=div5#se16.1.312_12)
The Heroes of Overwatch
(https://playoverwatch.com/en-us/heroes)
Blizzard Entertainment Online Privacy Policy
(https://www.blizzard.com/en-us/legal/a4380ee5-5c8d-4e3b-83b7-ea26d01a9918/blizzard-entertainment-online-privacy-policy)
"SENATOR HAWLEY TO INTRODUCE LEGISLATION BANNING MANIPULATIVE VIDEO GAME FEATURES AIMED AT CHILDREN"
Press Release - May 8, 2019
(https://www.hawley.senate.gov/senator-hawley-introduce-legislation-banning-manipulative-video-game-features-aimed-children)
"Candy Crush – The Puzzle Game Phenomenon"
Indium Website - December 22, 2017
(https://www.indiumsoftware.com/blog/testing-candy-crush-game/#Demographics_and_Statistics)
***
FOR MORE CHECK US OUT:
On Twitter @hoeglaw
At our website: https://hoeglaw.com/
On our Blog, "Rules of the Game", at https://hoeglaw.wordpress.com/
On "Help Us Out Hoeg!" a regular segment on the Easy Allies Podcast (formerly GameTrailers)
(https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZrxXp1reP8E353rZsB3jaA)
Biweekly on "Inside the Huddle with Michael Spath" on WTKA 1050
52 min
May 10, 2019 Virtual Legality #55 - MT Words: The Legal Issues Posed by Senator's Proposed Microtransaction Ban
null
52 min
May 08, 2019 Virtual Legality 54 - Could Playing A Game Before Release Cost You Your Xbox Live Account?!
It's a new world as Microsoft and Xbox have reinterpreted their existing Services Agreement (binding all Xbox Live account holders) under new "Community Standards" in some...interesting...ways.
Who determines what is "a little bit" of trash talk, and whether or not it is "clean"?
When are prizes and giveaways "frequent", "regular", or "repetitive"?
Is music in voice chat really "inappropriate"?
What makes a political position "controversial"?
Is requesting redress for damages or losses in the form of compensation from Xbox now tantamount to fraud?
What about playing a game before its release date, or disclosing its "surprise ending" (and what makes it a surprise)?
And...who watches the watchmen, anyway?
All this, plus EA's reactions to Anthem and its own new world in the age of the influencer, in today's Virtual Legality.
CHECK OUT THE VIDEO AT: https://youtu.be/z9khLd4hlKQ
For more on the issues presented by guidelines instead of rules:
"Virtual Legality #50 - On the Tyranny of "Guidelines": A PlayStation Story (Hoeg Law)"
(https://youtu.be/-ZPlpI1WeTQ)
#XboxLive #Anthem #VirtualLegality
***
Discussed in this episode:
"Electronic Arts says the old way of releasing games doesn't work anymore"
PCGamer - May 7, 2019 - Andy Chalk
(https://www.pcgamer.com/electronic-arts-says-the-old-way-of-releasing-games-doesnt-work-anymore/)
"Xbox Live’s new standards try to define acceptable trash talk"
Polygon - May 2, 2019 - Owen Good
(https://www.polygon.com/2019/5/2/18527220/xbox-live-community-standards-update-toxic-behavior-harassment)
"Community Standards for Xbox"
(https://www.xbox.com/en-US/Legal/Community-Standards)
"Microsoft Services Agreement"
Updated May 1, 2018
(https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/servicesagreement)
Electronic Arts "Legal" Terms
(https://www.ea.com/legal#1)
***
FOR MORE CHECK US OUT:
On Twitter @hoeglaw
At our website: https://hoeglaw.com/
On our Blog, "Rules of the Game", at https://hoeglaw.wordpress.com/
On "Help Us Out Hoeg!" a regular segment on the Easy Allies Podcast (formerly GameTrailers)
(https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZrxXp1reP8E353rZsB3jaA)
Biweekly on "Inside the Huddle with Michael Spath" on WTKA 1050
1 hr 9 min

About Virtual Legality

From the publisher's feed

Virtual Legality is a continuing series discussing the law, video games, software, and everything digital, hosted by Richard Hoeg, of the Hoeg Law Business Law Firm (Hoeg Law).