>>714882550
>Because I believe regulations are not necessary when consumers have ample freedom to either partake in or reject the predatory experience.
Decades of the opposite happening year after year have proven otherwise, see: mtx, season passes, bad ports, reselling the same game year after year (like fifa and similar games), sequels being worse and selling more every time (see pokemon and similar games), data collection, private servers being gone from most games,
>Especially when they limit creative freedom.
Releasing soem files so people can host their games doesn't limit anything, there's also many other possible solutions. That's like saying seatbelts limit car designs.
>We are essentially discussing if a game can be always-online and terminate service once the developers are done with it. My answer to this is of fucking course it can
The innitiative doesn't state otherwise
>Why the fuck should I stop people from playing WoW, Genshin Impact, Guild Wars 2?
Who is saying we should stop them? Also games like WoW are clearly rentals, and have clear conditions on when your access ends when you pay for the month/year/etc. unlike all the other games being killed, which could last 3 years or 2 weeks for all you know.
>But nowadays it is so easy to know if you look at reviews.
Most games don't state it clearly, if they want their game to be rented and not bought they should add a termination date, just like wow and similar games.
> the skiggers want to place regulations on developers and tell them how they should develop their games.
funny that you mention this, most devs that have said sth it's been to support the initiative, while most corporate suits are the ones against it