>>714278234
even if it passes this initiative / law proposal will result in absolute 0 changes.
If this law was added tomorrow, literally 0 games would be liable for anything because they ALREADY only sell you a limited access license, not a full perpetual one.
Thats the thing people are misunderstanding behind this movement. Its not asking for 1 thing, its asking for 2:
>1: force game devs to make a way for games to keep on living after they are done hosting it themselves
>2: make limited non-perpetual licensing illegal
the first is possible to implement, the second one isn't.
oh and if you think any sort of law like "if a company wants to sell a non-perpetual limited access license then they have to very EXPLICITLY state it" will make any difference, then you are gravely mistaken. Even if such a law is implemented then literally EVERY game company will just explicitly state that they are selling you a limited license not a full one. They dont give a shit. And guess what? it will have 0 (ABSOLUTE 0) affect on their sales. Gamers are not gonna NOT buy a game over this, if you think so you're delusional. Do people not buy sneakers even though they know they're produced by slaves in china? no, they dont give a fuck lol and buy them anyway. Similarly gamers aren't gonna give a fuck whether the game they buy might be inaccessible in 10 years.
