Thread 81833963

>i should be able to play online games without an internet connection
are gamers too retarded to deserve political rights?

why shill here, rajesh? did you get banned on /v/ again?

>>81833963 (OP)
I like ross though :3

Eh, on the other hand it's stupid that playing Gran Turismo 7 requires an internet connection to play when NOT racing other players.
When PSN went down, we all lost a day's play/rewards. Same thing when my router was fucked and I was offline for five miserable days.

>>81833963 (OP)
except nobody is advocating for that you smelly jeet

>>81833963 (OP)
We want the means to create our own servers and/or require developers to include peer to peer functionality. Anything to keep the game you paid full price for working in some capacity indefinitely. Why am I responding to bait? I should end it all.

this is already a thread on /v/

Same people who advocate for state mandated GF

>>81833963 (OP)
>be low IQ subhuman
>misunderstand the obvious

No jeet, it's
>I should be able to play games I bought

>>81833963 (OP)
tell me again why i should care about this? im tired of seeing this fags ugly mug everywhere

>are gamers too retarded to deserve political rights?
Based on the fact that gaymers can't help but keep giving money to companies that make remotely killable slop, I'd say yes.

>>81835669
Basically tldr if you're a company and sell a game, you must have an end of life plan, so your game isn't gone when you're gone.
Basically stop killing games destroying their availability forever and losing them in time.
>>81835682
This too, the people are retarded, so everyone even the non retarded must suffer, so we need government to herd the retards by force towards fair practices.

>le epic strawman
you shouldn't need internet to play single player games after you've downloaded them

I don't have such a problem with games "dying" because I don't think that the kind of slop that is purpose-built with a remote killswitch is worth preserving in the first place. To me, it's dead or non-existent to begin with. If all games suddenly shifted to this model in the future (which they won't) then I'd be perfectly happy to not buy or play any of them and just stick to the thousands of old games that already exist.

Ross thinks that *all* games should be perserved out of principle, because deliberately designing them to become unplayable at an unspecified point in the future, is unnecessary and preventable. Certainly a stance I can sympathise with, even if I don't hold that opinion myself. I'm glad there's some kind of collective pushback against predatory practices in this sea of braindead consoomerism.

>>81833963 (OP)
It's not about that, it's a motion for legislation on game publishers being mandated to make available the a method for people to play the games they paid for via private servers etc.

>>81835929
not even private servers necessarily, just don't make games impossible to play without a central server connection. how they want to achieve that is up to them

>>81835721
the nourishing female garloid >_<

>>81835669
They're making it illegal to take away things people paid for, vidya is just the medium they're achieving this througg

>>81835669
If you buy you thing you should own your thing, company shouldn't be deciding when to remove the access to the thing you paid for

>>81833978
>starts thinking about saars for no reason