Hi there, We removed Dark and Darker from sale on the Epic Games Store on March 5 in consideration of a court decision in Korea between Nexon and the game’s publisher, IRONMACE. On November 1, 2025, we will be removing Dark and Darker from your library, at which point it will no longer be playable via the Epic Games Store.
Effective immediately, players can no longer purchase Redstone Shards or the Legendary Status upgrades via the Epic Games Store. Players can continue to use the Redstone Shards that they have previously purchased until November 1, 2025.
We will issue a refund to all players who have purchased the Legendary Status upgrade. Refunds will be issued to the player’s original payment method, and where that’s not possible, players will receive a refund to their Epic account balance. We are unable to provide refunds on Redstone Shards.
If you have not received a refund by July 1, please contact player support.
Thank you,
The Epic Games Store team
You must log in or # to comment.
It’s a multiplayer freemium game. Even if they let you keep your “copy” of it, servers will be down and the game will not be playable anyways. At least they offer a refund.
Two crimes, then.
Multiplayer online games used to allow you to self-host so there was no obligatory centralised server. The game need not be deleted, that was purely a business decision.
I remember when you could be a listen server or run your own dedicated server using the freely available executable. Been a while since I’ve seen anything like that
Lots of game still have that, Satisfactory, Minecraft, Valheim
The suits found out what servers are. Worst shit that ever happened
The game would have gone offline eventually anyway. Most people get nothing when that inevitably happens. Some games flip to an offline only version, but that’s very rare.
Hell, I bought single player offline games from the Play store for my phone, and they no longer seem to exist. RIP Rayman Jungle Run.
Perpetuum official servers went down years ago, so they open source the server and the game lives on. Free on steam
Reminder that you do not own digital games
That is not universally true. On GOG for example you can download all your games, so things like this could not happen there. Sure, you still technically purchase a license and do not actually buy the games, but for all intents and purposes this is still the closest you get to actually owning the games.
They don’t have DRM. That’s not the same as owning the game. If you don’t back up the games or installers yourself, and GOG goes under, you lose access to your library the same as Epic or Steam going away.
You can back up your Steam and Epic games, too. You just need to be able to access your account to verify your license for most titles (but not everything; loads of games do not use Steam or Epic’s DRM, have no online checks to verify anything, and you can just copy the installation folder to another machine to play the game). But you can also easily crack both of their DRM to skip the online checks even if they do use it.
This goes for physical media as well. You own the disk; you do not own the software on said disk. The software on the physical media could still have an online check to see if you are a license holder (this is what CD-Keys are used for) and block you from installing/running the software, despite it being on your own CD/DVD. I am pretty sure I myself have games on disk that can not be installed because the online verification servers no longer exist, so the only way to install them is with cracks.
They don’t have DRM. That’s not the same as owning the game.
That’s why I mentioned that you purchase a license. That has also always been true even if you “bought” a game as a physical copy in a store. A DRM-free game is still the closest thing you get to owning a game.
If you don’t back up the games or installers yourself, and GOG goes under, you lose access to your library the same as Epic or Steam going away.
I have heard this argument before, but I really don’t get it. Of course you could lose your files if you don’t download them. I’d say that’s so obvious it isn’t even worth mentioning. If you lose or destroy your physical copy of a game you also lose access to it. Pretty obvious.
Why could you both not be right ? Yes, right now a DRM Free game is the closest thing that we get to owning a game. Yet, that wasn’t always true, we used to have an unlimited access to our video game, executable, as long as we had a disk.
But they took that from us ! 👿
But that’s the point they’re making, isn’t it? With GOG games you can download the installer. With that you also get unlimited access to it.
Given you don’t lose it, but that same argument goes for physical disks.
Exactly, GOG has no control on how you use it, for all intents and purposes it’s yours. You can even borrow the game to your friends if you want. I love GOG, hope they nvr go under
So you’re saying torrenting and seeding is basically a moral obligation?
It’s just basic preservation of art. 😤
Depending on the era of the game, you might well own a copy of a game on a disk, just like you own a copy of a book when you buy a book. Weaselling out of first-sale-doctrine stuff came a long time after people started buying video games. A century ago, publishers were trying exactly the same thing with books, and depending on the country, either legislation was introduced that made it explicitly illegal, or the courts determined that putting a licence agreement in a book just meant that the customer got a copy of a licence agreement with their book, not that they were bound by its terms.
I was born in '85. IBM pioneered the idea of software licensing in the '50s. Nothing I’ve ever purchased was old enough to be free from the concept.
The thing I hate most is not being able to re-sell something. I mean, sure, I could sell my disks to someone; but they wouldn’t necessarily be able to use them and then I would be guilty of fraud or copyright violation or both. 😩
You own your individual copy of the game software, end of. It doesn’t fucking matter if it’s on a disc or a digital download.
also piracy, ironically
It’s not ever true. It is always a lie pushed by copyright-maximalist shysters who hope the public is too cowed to call them on their bullshit.
Sure you get a DRM-free license on GOG, but for many games you are still dependent on online servers for authentication, which can be shut down at any time rendering your access null and void. The only recourse is technically “hacking” a game a creating local servers which is both against terms of service and against the law in some countries.
online servers for authentication
I am not aware of any game on GOG that requires an online server for authentication. I’m not saying no such thing exists - I don’t own every single game on GOG, but that would go against the whole DRM free thing. Care to name a few games that do this? I don’t mean games that have an online mode that require a server, but games that just require authentication against an online server to be able to play the game.
You are talking about always-on DRM, I was talking about dependence on the servers for connecting to the multiplayer. Most of GOG games lose partial funtionality when servers get shut down as GOG doesn’t use/host their own servers.
You specifically said “online servers for authentication”. That’s what I understood as just that - a server required to be able to play the game, not a server required to use an actual online feature of a game. Don’t get me wrong, I very much prefer when games allow multiplayer games without requiring a server run by the publisher. All that is very different from what the posts title is about, though.
By the way, there are still games on GOG that let you run local servers for multi player gaming.
You specifically said “online servers for authentication”.
And then continued in the next sentence. In context it makes sense, without it I can understand your confusion.
And I’m not trying to attack GOG, just highlighting the reality of online “onwership” in general. GOG and Itch.io are the best we can get without real regulations.
There are some great open source games (like [email protected]), but it’s still very rare.
When steam takes games off the store they let you still download them. Epic just sucks.
They are doing refunds resulting in issues from a lawsuit.
How is this epic bad?
It was pulled from Steam years ago due to another lawsuit
https://www.gamesradar.com/dark-and-darker-has-been-pulled-from-steam/
Yes, but steam didn’t remove it from your library
They have before… 12 years ago was first occurrence
https://www.reddit.com/r/Steam/comments/1pzpny/steam_has_now_officially_removed_their_first_game/
My opinion is once I’ve paid for a game, piracy is on the table for that game if anything happens that prevents me from playing the copy I purchased.
Not just your opinion, it’s the law in some places.
Which places?
UK law allows for making and duplication of digital copies of a product you own that version of, provided you don’t share them with others.
At least it did 15 years ago, not 100% certain today off the top of my head.
Every place that actually gives a shit about property rights.
Such as?
Oh, those don’t exist anymore
Oh, those don’t exist anymore
This is a multiplayer freemium game though, I don’t think there are any cracked servers for it, and supposedly there are options for Epic users to retain their accounts with things they’ve bought (the game is also apparently kind of p2w).
I’ll give them props that they are going to refund owners for the bit they can, I would have expected most stores so to go “oh well! we have been ordered to remove it, sucks to be you.”
I guess Nexon wasn’t happy with $6 million because the court found Dark & Darker wasn’t copyright infringement, but was an infringement of ‘trade secrets’.
If I remember 2023 correctly, Nexon decided to cut the game at the end of development and dumpster their work. So the devs left and finished the game on their own. Since Nexon never actually made/finished/released the game they couldn’t claim copyright.
I mean to be fair, as the court determined, the people making this game stole parts of the game to sell to you in the first place, so this was piracy with more steps. I feel like the correct action would have been for the store to stop selling the game, the people that made money be forced to give that money to the people that were harmed by the steeling of the content. I guess it’s a bad look on Epic for them too to keep money made from this and maybe they are just trying to avoid being drawn into this ordeal by doing it this way. Legal systems in other countries can be a bit more precarious than what we expect.
But yeah, it’s a dark precedent. Remove them from my library so I can’t redownload them from Epic? Never see updates? Maybe even not ever launch through Epic’s app? Sure. I get that.
I really wish these stores had better simple language right in the “buy now” buttons. (Like, for example, “Rent now!”)
Steam has proven to be a far, far, far more capable and stable repository for my games that I could be … since May 2006. I got Steam because that’s how you bought Half Life 2.
Ya know what? I can still play Half Life 2. I’ve never had the slightest problem accessing any Steam game other than Ubisoft crap, and now I don’t buy Ubi.
Add it up, man. That’s 19 years of gaming. 151 games. And I have access to every bit of it, at my whim.
For some basic comparison, I have a couple digital pictures that old. A handful. And its shocking that I managed to keep track of them that long. An accident, really.
Steam does the job of safeguarding my games much better than I can.Hate to think what will happen when Gaben retires.
Piracy, in a word
Sure, that is the alternative, but nothing will beat the wide range of functionality that steam and valve provide. The death of this platform would be catastrophic.
Agreed. If Steam goes under (not really likely), there’s still GOG & itchio.
This isn’t exclusive to epic. Steam has had games removed as well.
19 years. And the only bad part was Ubi. That’s it.
Honestly, with a record like that, why would I care that Steam has had games removed?
And, it occurs to me, in 19 years, how could they not have had games removed?I can only think of the Digital Homicide library having been removed, but if you already purchased those, you have them. Those games were absolute shovelware with no artistic or entertainment value though.
I’m more pissed about the Unreal franchise being pulled, which was entirely on Epic. Fuck Tim Sweeney.
Then why the outrage from this news story then?
I also boycott epic. Steam is the way. But for reasons that steam is different to epic.
I like Steam enough that I haven’t bothered with any other platform.
I do hear good things about those other platforms, (maybe they are cheaper, and maybe they support old games better?) But all my games are in one spot on steam, and its simpler for me to keep it that way.It does seem that there are people really outraged by the news story. I don’t entirely understand, other than people like to get upset about things. Being outraged is engaging and takes your mind off of whatever else is bothering you.
You do not own physical games either. It’s just harder for the publisher to revoke a license for a physical game but legally there is little difference.
Nintendo: “hold my beer”
Game key cards are the stupidest idea I have seen in a long time.
You mean the thing Sony/MS set the precedent for under the name Smart Delivery 5 years ago? In a physical media form factor that’s cheaper to produce…
Not true. With older physical games which fit on the CDs/DVDs you by law owned your copy and had full ownership over it to do whatever you wanted.
That’s the difference between license and owning.
What? That’s explicitly false. Grab nearly any instruction booklet for physical media, at least for any from 1990 or later. There are explicit sections laying out that you have licensed the content. 35 years ago.
In another comment on this post, someone pointed out that IBM began software licensing in the 50s. So… 75 years ago.
How far back are you going here?
For stuff like game carts/discs, VHS, and DVDs they simply had no way of enforcing the license terms, and the terms much more often included clauses for transference (lending, resale).
By law, it was almost always a license. That was the entire push behind the old attempts to criminalize backup devices and emulation (the bleem! case is good to read up on).
No arguments about how things worked out in day to day life, but a lot of shit was far more of a legal grey area that no one cared to persue. It wasn’t as much of a difference of legal rights.
Edit: Well shit, I might be wrong about this. A quick search of the Pokemon Blue Instruction Booklet on the Internet Archive has a section toward the end about copying/backups and not being allowed to rent the game out wirhout approval, but nothing about the license for use.
That said, I’m certain I’ve seen licensing terms in multiple instruction books from that decade. Maybe it was in the secondary black and white booklet that was generic but came with every GB cart? Don’t know where mine are, or if I even still have those.
Ok, checking my physical stuff. Ape Escape for PS1 has no licensing terms in the manual. Just warranty. Great game btw, I’m due for a replay.
Bubsy 3D is next in my collection of PS1 games still CIB, and it does though. Last page forbids transference or resale. Somebody better call that retro game store I bought it from for the lols.
By the way, Bubsy 3D isn’t even worth it for the laughs. Not “so bad it’s good”. Just “so bad it’s bad”. It cribs the weird control style from Jumping Flash, but does such a worse job with it.
So it looks like the licensing thing may just be case by case. That would explain why some people insist there was licensing terms, and others insist there wasn’t.
Books can’t say “by buying this book, nuh uh, you secretly agreed to blah blah blah.”
That shit got thrown out a century ago. Fuck off making excuses for corporate bastards in a new medium.
That’s the difference between license and owning.
No, when you own a game, you can make copies and sell them. That is because owning the game means you own the copyright to the game.
If you are not the owner of the IP (which you aren’t, unless you own the company that made the game), then the only way to legally play the game is for the actual owner to provide you with some kind of license. If you don’t have a license then the default copyright rules apply which means you aren’t legally allowed to have or play a copy.
Your license is also limited and doesn’t allow you to ‘do whatever you want’. Try selling copies and see how quickly you get sued. You can’t even do what you want with your single copy. Go buy a bunch of physical games and start a game rental business. Or buy a bunch of physical games and open a game cafe where people can play ‘your’ games. Your license doesn’t allow you to do that.
The second-hand videogame market will always exist, even if the license when you bought the game doesn’t give you explicit permission to sell your copy. This probably isn’t going to change any time soon either
With physical games the disc or cartridge acts as your license key, which they allow you to sell to another person. Doesn’t mean they couldn’t have sold you a non-transferable license, it only means they chose not to. Probably because it wouldn’t be cost-effective to do so.
Also, just because you can do something doesn’t make it legal.
With books and older non-unique registration code games it is explicitly legal to sell them second, third, etc hand.
At least in the EU and UK where those overly restrictive licenses you bring up have been declared ineffective. Maybe in the US it’s just another personal freedom sacrificed for freedom of capital.
Sure, sell. But there are still limitations. You aren’t allow to rent it out or sell copies, for example.
Just because the license is a bit more permissive doesn’t make you the owner, it’s still licensed software, not owned software.
The only thing you own is the 2 cents worth of plastic the disc is made off. The actual content on the disc is licensed.
I think the confusion comes about from the different meanings of the world “own”. When you buy a book it comes with an implied personal use license to the contents of the book. I think most people are aware that you aren’t allowed to make copies of the book and sell those copies. You do “own” the physical copy though. You can do whatever you want with it besides copy it and sell the copies. Technically you aren’t allowed to even make a physical copy for personal backup purposes, but that does typically fall under fair use. So while it’s still breaking copyright rules, you aren’t likely to be prosecuted for it.
The same is true with software unless some other license is used (ex GPL) except, with software you are allowed to make 1 copy for the purpose of archiving the software in case it is damaged or lost. You must destroy or transfer your backup copy if you ever decide to sell, transfer or give away your original valid copy. It is not legal to sell a backup copy of software unless you are selling it along with the original.
The DMCA circumvented this by making it illegal to break encryption in order to make a backup. So while you technically still have the right to make the copy, breaking encryption in order to do so is illegal.
All that being said, if you buy a DRM free copy of a game, in theory you ‘own’ it in the same way you would own any other piece of non-encrypted software. You could legally make a backup and even sell the game to someone else as long as you deleted your copy and any backups at the same time.
That’s as close to ‘owning’ a piece of copyrighted material as you are ever going to get. So while you don’t ‘own’ the IP, you do ‘own’ your copy along with the implied license. That is again assuming the game doesn’t come with a license that explicitly states you aren’t allowed to copy or sell it.
That’s as close to ‘owning’ a piece of copyrighted material as you are ever going to get.
Not true at all. Pretty much all of us own loads of copyrighted material, as in actually own. For example: every single photo you take is your intellectual property.
Clearly I was referring to copyrighted material you don’t own the copyright to, but sure.
I own every book on my shelf. That copy is not the same as copyright. Grow up.
Exactly. You own the physical paper, you don’t own the text on that paper, you only have a license to it.
No. I own that copy. It’s not a license to anything. I own it. It’s mine. That’s what the money was for.
Don’t play corporate word games with concepts as basic as having things.
No. I own that copy. It’s not a license to anything. I own it. It’s mine. That’s what the money was for.
Yeah that’s not how copyright works. You are either the owner of the IP (i.e. the company that paid for developing the game) or you need a license to be allowed to own/play a copy. There is no third option here.
Don’t play corporate word games with concepts as basic as having things.
It’s not word games, it’s the law. You and I may not like it but that doesn’t really change anything.
Copyright is about copying. When someone sells you a product, and you buy it, then you own it. No license is involved. Under the first sale doctrine, no license can be involved - a book can’t have an insert with a EULA. They can print it… but it doesn’t matter. You bought that slip of paper, too.
If you stubbornly believe there’s some instant contract required to look at the logo on a candy wrapper, why are you tutting at people for calling that intolerable nonsense, instead of demanding a change to that intolerable nonsense?
There are limitations of what you can do with your copy that you own, but the laws that apply to them are different than those of digital games. By design all the protections physical goods had were removed for digital goods by the same companies. That’s why ownership is dead.
By law I can trade or sell my copy of a physical game to anyone I want because I own it. Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine.
First sale doctrine gives you some rights, but it doesn’t give all the same rights you would have for any other physical object that doesn’t include copyrighted work.
If I buy 100 chairs, I’m free to start a chair rental business. If I buy 100 copies of a game, I cannot start renting them out without permission from the actual owner of the game.
The fact that the law entitles you to a slightly broader license doesn’t take away from the fact that it’s still just a license and not ownership. The only thing you own is the physical media (e.g. the plastic disc) not the contents of that disc.
It’s false equivalency. Do you own a chair design or just a physical chair? Do you own a physical painting you bought (protected by the same laws as physical games)?
First sale doctrine gives you some rights, but it doesn’t give the all same rights you would have for any other physical object that doesn’t include copyrighted work.
If I buy 100 chairs, I’m free to start a chair rental business. If I buy 100 copies of a game, I cannot start renting them out without permission from the actual owner of the game.
The fact that the law entitles you to a slightly broader license doesn’t take away from the fact that it’s still just a license and not ownership. The only thing you own is the physical media (e.g. the plastic disc) not the contents of that disc.
Sure do. They’re on my disk and without DRM or removed DRM.
deleted by creator
I do, because I have loads of them on disc and carts still.
You own things you buy.
This is theft.
Anyone rolling their eyes and performing apologism can fuck off.
