>>508785290>kek i just recently learned about this cringe. basically some retard is angry that the video game industry shuts down live service games after a while.Sounds like you didn't learn much about it then, because you're not even close to right.
The movement isn't about things like Fortnite, which are live service games. Those are games that receive regular updates to keep players coming back to experience, and pay for, new content. This obviously could not be sustained without constant developer contributions, and once the devs move off the project the game cannot be supported further.
What #stopkillinggames is about is single player games, or games that can otherwise be run from a single computer, getting erased from the internet when the servers go down when the servers were never essential to the game functioning in the first place. This shit started with games like Diablo 3, which required you to be logged into a blizzard service and maintain a constant internet connection even when playing single player locally or the game would shut you out. This practice has only become more common over time, and when the company stops supporting the game or goes under or whatever else causes an interruption of service, the game you paid for vanishes into thin air despite this being an easily avoidable outcome.
The scope of #stopkillinggames also extends beyond video games itself, and the common consumer has a stake in this working even if they never touch a video game in their life. Because whats really being fought over here is: how are the mercy of tech companies are you? What are you entitled to when you pay for a product? Why are we settling for *temporary* access to a product that can be taken away from us at any time when we pay full price for software, when having permanent access used to be the norm? This damage has already spread to other things people use, like how Microsoft Office is a subscription service now instead of a one and done purchase.