Search Results
7/3/2025, 9:04:36 AM
>>714349481
I think all games (and media in general), both good and bad should be preserved. Right now it just seems like dogshit that people buy, play and then throw away but give it 200 years and it becomes important data for the way people lived in this age.
If all mobile slop is deleted from existence how will we ever learn from our mistakes as a people?
I think all games (and media in general), both good and bad should be preserved. Right now it just seems like dogshit that people buy, play and then throw away but give it 200 years and it becomes important data for the way people lived in this age.
If all mobile slop is deleted from existence how will we ever learn from our mistakes as a people?
7/2/2025, 7:27:15 AM
>>714244284
>the IP owner's ability to control access to their property
>their property
This is where the EU draws the line. Once you've sold a license for a product to a customer it is theirs. Because digital content is such a new thing and politicians are old retards it's being very slowly implemented, but digital content like movies, music and video games that let you make a one-time purchase to use it ad infinitum are generally being considered as legally closer to products.
There really is no real-world analogue for what SKG is trying to prevent. The closest thing really is a company coming into your home and physically destroying the product you purchased. But obviously that's not perfect because with digital content there is some degree of upkeep on the side of the seller. For many games this isn't an issue but some have online elements that companies just don't want to spend any money on maintaining nor are they willing to pay devs to make the game accessible after they take servers down.
Ultimately, SKG is trying to make it so the EU steps in and tells publishers that - as part of their development process - they need to have an end-of-life plan in place for any games which require it. Whether that means releasing server tools, making the content available offline or just not making live service games at all doesn't matter. What matters is that customers continue to have access to a functional version of the digital content they paid for.
>the IP owner's ability to control access to their property
>their property
This is where the EU draws the line. Once you've sold a license for a product to a customer it is theirs. Because digital content is such a new thing and politicians are old retards it's being very slowly implemented, but digital content like movies, music and video games that let you make a one-time purchase to use it ad infinitum are generally being considered as legally closer to products.
There really is no real-world analogue for what SKG is trying to prevent. The closest thing really is a company coming into your home and physically destroying the product you purchased. But obviously that's not perfect because with digital content there is some degree of upkeep on the side of the seller. For many games this isn't an issue but some have online elements that companies just don't want to spend any money on maintaining nor are they willing to pay devs to make the game accessible after they take servers down.
Ultimately, SKG is trying to make it so the EU steps in and tells publishers that - as part of their development process - they need to have an end-of-life plan in place for any games which require it. Whether that means releasing server tools, making the content available offline or just not making live service games at all doesn't matter. What matters is that customers continue to have access to a functional version of the digital content they paid for.
6/29/2025, 5:57:37 PM
>GUYS THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO RELEASE SERVER CODE!!!!
It's not retroactive because that's not how the law works. Any games out there right now will be grandfathered in.
Existing games won't have to release anything. Future games can and should be built with an EoL plan in mind. If you can't even do your customers the service of not shooting their purchase in the head once it's no longer at peak economic efficiency then you don't deserve to succeed.
If you don't have the money to do it in the first place then maybe you shouldn't be making a live-service game at all. I imagine it costs a lot more money to maintain servers for years on end than to spend some development time making a server package.
It's not retroactive because that's not how the law works. Any games out there right now will be grandfathered in.
Existing games won't have to release anything. Future games can and should be built with an EoL plan in mind. If you can't even do your customers the service of not shooting their purchase in the head once it's no longer at peak economic efficiency then you don't deserve to succeed.
If you don't have the money to do it in the first place then maybe you shouldn't be making a live-service game at all. I imagine it costs a lot more money to maintain servers for years on end than to spend some development time making a server package.
Page 1