You Don't Own What You Buy: The Tetris Edition

from the blockheads dept

In the convoluted realm that has become copyright, licensing agreements, and SaaS-style everything, we've had something of a running series of posts that focus on the bewildering concept that we no longer own what we buy. Between movies simply being disappeared, features on gaming consoles being obliterated via firmware update, and entire eBook platforms simply ceasing to work, the benefits of handing over very real dollars have never been more fleeting.

This has been ingrained to the point of public reaction to this sort of thing amounting to that of placid cattle being shown the slaughter room. So, when Electronic Arts alerted those that purchased its iOS Tetris game that, surprise, this game is just going to not work any longer soon, public outcry wasn't even on the menu.

Players opening either game on their iOS devices are now greeted with a pop-up message that’s also included in the “What’s New” section of both Tetris Premium and Tetris Blitz’s listings in the iOS App Store warning them that the countdown on each title has officially begun:

Hello Fans,

We have had an amazing journey with you so far but sadly, it is time to say goodbye. As of April 21, 2020, EA’s Tetris® app will be retired, and will no longer be available to play. Kindly note that you will still be able to enjoy the game and use any existing in-game items until April 21, 2020. We hope you have gotten many hours of enjoyment out of this game and we appreciate your ongoing support. Thank you!

Hey, thanks for buying our game and, great news, you'll get to play what you bought just a little while longer, mmkay bye! Gamers, at this point, are quite used to beloved games suddenly being unsupported after a few years, meaning that the game won't be updated, won't work on modern operating systems, and might not have an active online gamer platform when support runs out. What's less common is for the game to have been constructed in a way that is completely unplayable, full stop, when the publisher flicks a switch.

So why is this happening in this case? Well, because EA doesn't actually own Tetris. It just licenses the title to publish games. And, The Tetris Company has entered into a new licensing agreement for exclusive mobile game publishing with a different company.

Last year, The Tetris Company, Inc. and N3TWORK announced a multi-year agreement where N3TWORK will be the exclusive developer and publisher of new Tetris® games for mobile devices worldwide, excluding China. EA’s announcement that it will retire its Tetris®, Tetris® Premium and Tetris® Blitz games as of April 21 is a result of this agreement.

The Tetris brand continuously aims to bring fans game experiences that are fresh, innovative and fun. We are excited about these new changes for Tetris on mobile and plan to share more news with fans very soon.

All of which I imagine is lost on the average person who bought EA's Tetris games, thinking that buying them meant they owned them. Can you imagine asking the average gamer if they would have made that same purchase if they realized that their game might simply disappear and cease to work if the Tetris people decided on a new licensing agreement with a different publisher?

This is a mess and it's probably time for consumer groups to look into some kind of consumer protection rules that would either prevent this sort of thing or, more likely, make notifying buyers that they aren't actually buying the product more prominent than some subsection paragraph buried in a EULA.

Hide this




–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, expiring games, games, licenses, tetris
Companies: ea, n3twork, the tetris company

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Thread

  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Jan 2020 @ 6:43am

    Re: This. So much this.

    rent or acquire a license

    At that point people will immediately demand lower prices. Hence why they don't use that language.

    I realize it is semantics, but it is unethical for them to mislead buyers into thinking they own something that can disappear or lose access to at anytime.

    Yes it is, but therein lies the real problem: Rightsholders want total control over a copy, that the fundamental rules of the market dictates they lose once the copy is sold.

    The ironic thing is that people value the idea of "buy" or "purchase", even when talking about nothing but indefinitely replicable digital bits, but say "rent" or "license" and people will realize what you're really trying to sell them: Permission.

    "Buy" / "purchase" even in the warped context that is copyright still implies that the consumer owns the copy. Not the product the copy represents, the copy itself. Rightsholders however have long decided even before that precedent was made, that it wasn't good enough for them. They wanted a rental model from the start. One where they could charge you indefinitely for everything at whatever rates they dictated. This is why we have such broken precedents of it's a "license" when it comes to ownership, but a "sale" when it comes to liability.

    SaaS is just the next move towards their goal, as is the video game's industry's constant hype for things like Google's Stadia despite the massive implementation issues. They want to be able to turn everything off with the push of a button. Why? Because that gives them the never ending revenue stream they don't deserve. Why bother innovating when you can just charge indefinitely for the same product? Truly Unethical. The whole lot.

Add Your Comment


Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories


Email This
