>>718162854
>>existing games who employ the live service method cannot be retroactively changed to fit new legislation (and laws cannot act retroarctively), so all appeals from SKG to save Ubisoft and EA games are rendered useless
We've known this from the start, the point is to save future games
>>likewise, signed terms of use contracts (which predict server shutdown from the contractor's side) by users cannot be invalidated, and you most likely signed one of these when you booted your game
we also know this, but eulas aren't supposed to be used like this, it's not legal to fuck your customer just cause they agreed to a eula, cases are decided individually
>>the effect of this is that existing live services can continue endlessly while the market is closed off to future competitors, so expect more thirty years of FF14, WoW and Guild Wars domination
These are dominating anyway I don't see how this changes anything, plus you didn't even mention how SKG wouldn't effect sub MMOs, since those are justifiably services, we've known this
>>SKG's forceful commitment that every game must run offline increases the risk of piracy (loss of profit) while raising costs of production
Yeah, if you can't fuck your customer with DRM and just kill their game piracy oppourtunity increases, and the cost increase would be minimal if it was already worked into the plan for the game, again, this is to help protect FUTURE GAMES, you have to assume those costs would be already accounted for
>>additional legislation that makes making certain type of games prohibitive and threaten to harm existing live services (and potential new business practices
>NOOOO MY ""INOVATIVE"" GAME WHERE YOU BUY IT AND I TAKE IT AWAY FROM YOU IN A MONTH AAAIIIIIIEEEEEEEE
