Thread 714590438

I-I... HAVE NO ARGUMENTS AGAINST T-THIS...

>>714590438 (OP)
What a fucking cop out
>Uh, no, we can't opensource the game after we shut the servers down because... because... it would be unsafe for the players!
Fuck off

>>714590438 (OP)
I have one: Not my problem.

>>714590796
so you're agreeing to pay for the live service for all time?
awesome!

>>714590438 (OP)
>secure players data
nothing to secure, would never play on a private server that asked me to pay for anything.
>remove illegal content
mods that circumvent their monetization
>unsafe community content
saying nigger, posting porn
in other words, they want to "protect you" from internet as it was before they took a big jewish shit in the well.

>about us
Why is "Video Games Europe" full of gaming corp slaves?

>>714590438 (OP)
This is the reality retards.

>>714591109
I don't understand how you got that from my post. Is it schizophrenia?

>>714591419
not recognizing extrapolation is a sign of autism.

>>714590438 (OP)
I seriously don't understand why they're so against continuing to sell their games without spending money on server upkeep.

>>714591716
There's extrapolation, and then there's making shit up with nothing to support it. Your post fits squarely in the latter category.

Okay, then.

MASS
SCALE
REFUNDS
ON
ALL
LIVE-SERVICE GAMES

>>714590438 (OP)
>expecting europoor bureaucracy to accomplish anything

>>714590796
Most games cannot be made open-source due to reliance on proprietary software libraries that they do not have the legal right to distribute.

>>714591937
your words have implications even if you don't understand them.

>>714591716
Making unrelated facetious arguments is a sign of extreme retardation

>>714591827
>if people play old games, they won't buy our new $80 game!
>let's not think about why they would rather play old games than our new game

>>714590438 (OP)
AHHH IM SIGNING!!! IM GONNA SIGGGGGNNN AHHHHhhhh yeah.. i just signed so hard.. fuuuUUckk....

>>714592130
Nobody is asking for it to compile.

>>714592168
>implications I choose to make up in my demented mind
lol stay mad nigger

>>714592480
Then what would be the point of open-sourcing only a fraction of the game's source code?
This is assuming there's anything that they can legally open-source. Depending on the engine used to build the game, there could be almost nothing they're able to open-source to the public.

Stop lying, they did it the 80s. You are literally running the files right now. Just upload them dipshit.

>>714590438 (OP)
Yeah. Let's you try to refute these points without sounding mad, euro/v/eddit.

>>714590438 (OP)
>We want to steal your money whenever we want
>Plus, people being free to say whatever they want inside our game makes us look bad
So that's all there is to it?
What a fucking joke of an industry...

>>714590438 (OP)
>We disagree that we should improve consumer protection laws because we already operate within the existing laws.
That's... literally why people want stronger laws

>>714590438 (OP)
I do. The legal fault already goes to the one hosting the illegal content and not to the creator of the game. You have nothing to worry about and I know for a fact you couldn't give less of a shit about "player safety".

>>714592791
>makes us look bad
Not even that, they said "liable" specifically, as in legally so, when this is literally not the case. The entire statement falls apart when you realise that.

>>714590438 (OP)
lol that was clearly written with an LLM.
if a company wants to "sell" something to their customer with no requirement of having to actually deliver a functional product, maybe they should get into a different business.

>>714590438 (OP)
>it's prohibitively expensive to let players host servers
No it's not. Shut the fuck up and serve your customers, or get shut down as any company failing to serve its customers should do

>>714590438 (OP)
>We can't censor it!
Great!

>>714592130
If that's a problem, then post that code in a compiled form. Voilla, there's no problem.

>>714592653
It's easy: I've paid for this so you can't simply take it away without refunding me.

>>714593005
You cannot be this stupid

>>714590796
They don't need to open source the software, just don't have always online drm and release the server binaries, even if they come stripped down of any anticheat and other software that can't be shared.
People are literally telling them they want to give them money for the game as long as they have the ability to play the game, but they're quite literally just saying "hurr durr you want to steal our game and make us spend millions making it single player" and in this they're literally saying not having ban happy AIs to steal people's money will make them "look bad", for God's sake...

>>714590438 (OP)
>combat unsafe community content
KWAB

>>714591181
OY VEYYYYYY ANTI-SEMITE TAKE THIS DOWN! the goyim aren't allowed to say certain words. those are reserved for g-d's chosen people!

>>714590438 (OP)
>we steal your money for your own protection
mmm delicious euro bureaucracy

>>714592896
Technically in Spain a corporation can be held liable over their users speech if they don't take action for it, but I can hardly imagine this would apply to a fucking videogame hosted by someone else, plus, I'm pretty sure if I looked at that ruling I could see some shit about them heavily policing people of one side and not another.

>Our members:
>EA
>Ubisoft
>Activision Blizzard

Them posting a response is a very good sign for SKG because it means they view it as an actual threat.

>>714590438 (OP)
Tunngle worked just fine, Gang of control freaks.

>>714593420
You SKGtrannies lost. The brightest minds in the industry will squash you like bugs.

>>714590438 (OP)
Imagine there's no GAAS slop
It's easy if you try
No skinner boxes below us
Above us, only fun

Imagine all the gamers
Livin' for today
Ah

Imagine there's no microtransactions
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or lose for
And just intrinsic rewards, too

Imagine all the people
Playing games because for fun

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

God I'm looking forward to shitting on you faggots when this goes nowhere

"unsafe community content" means "we want to jail you for making jokes about trannies with your bros"

>>714593327
It wouldn't apply to private servers because a private server is outside their ability to police, and the law is about common sense, at least on paper.

>>714590438 (OP)
>prohibitely expensive
nope you just have to release the files

>>714593564
They responded.
We've already won.

>>714593420
I hope youtubers feed this announcement to normies. the more people see how candid this shit is the more damage it does to GAAS slop reputation.

>>714593420
the fact they're calling in the shills on a saturday makes me wonder if this might actually move the needle. this thread feels like i'm reading pol

Suppose this does make it to the european parliament to get discussed over. Do you think moldman + ecelebs are going to be good argumentators in favor of this over the well spoken armies of contracted laywers that companies like EA, Blizzard, and Activision can afford?
On one side you have the moldmeister unable to articulate himself well enough not to cause misinformation to spread, on the other you have >>714590438 (OP)
Who the fuck do you think politicians are going to listen to on their own? Now who the fuck do you think politicians will listen to AFTER all the multibillion dollar companies pay them off?

If this actually succeeds it will seriously be a supreme miracle of inhuman like qualities of uncorruptability.

>>714593652
You misunderstand, it's expensive in the long term because there are more playable old games and they can't force you to move on if they have to release serverside architecture.

I can boot up 20 year old games that work just fine and have active communities
Why can't this happen now?

>>714590438 (OP)
Your data isn't secure even with the systems in place now, you think EA, activision or Ubisoft really care about player data? Multiple high profile game devs actively have games right now that people can play that have vulnerabilities in them that haven't been patched. No one gives a fuck about player data, which is a separate issue on its own.

Illegal content stops being illegal when it's on a player owned server? bro are you fucking retarded? the LAW keeps working after it goes into the hands of players, why do people keep making these shit arguments about the law like suddenly private servers are exempt from being held accountable for that shit?

Titles being designed from the ground-up to be online-only is part of the problem because players are slowly finding out
>Wait a minute
>Why the fuck does this game need to be online only?
and there's no good answer. Oh wait there is a good answer for you though
It's money.
Yeah just money and microtransactions.

Wait a minute, if making these games playable after shut down is "prohibitively expensive" aren't you loading off costs on to the consumer?

These arguments are so fucking dogshit, I've literally never heard a SKG argument that wasn't just completely oblivious to the current online space or what gaming has devolved into in 2025

>>714593652
>you just have to release the files
this

>>714594186
A gamer content with old games over new games is out of the market. The point of live service is that you're more likely to move on to new games after they kill the old ones. Take Overwatch as an example, people who still want to play Overwatch HAD to buy Overwatch 2 because Overwatch got axed. This way they can keep fleecing gamers for every cent without the obviously bad reputation that comes with a subscription model.

>>714593501
>The brightest minds in the industry
Shouldn't they be working on the games instead of starting a legal practice?

>>714590438 (OP)
>me as a single human
>have to do about a million things in weird and wrong ways because the government demands it
>every few months the government mandates more insane shit
>if i want a home i have to retrofit and fix shit to meet standards
>big corpo gets asked to setup a plan at the start of all new development to make things accessible after servers shut down
>"WAHHH THATS REALLY FUCKING HARD AND WOULD COST US MONEY NOOOOO THINK OF THE SHAREHOLDERS"
>Fags come out and defend big corpos and say itll hurt their favorite video games theyve spent 10s of thousands on at this point

these people are unhinged and shouldnt be allowed to have opinions

>>714594825
>my life sucks, so should yours
Is this the way commies justify licking the heel of the government's boots clean?

>>714590438 (OP)
Literally just make user end dedicated servers like basically all games before 2010 (aside from a few MMO where the cancer started earlier).
No once cares about the jargon, 99.9% of the people that signed the petition want dedicated servers.

>>714590438 (OP)
Hello, how can I revoke my signature on the Stop Killing Games petition? I no longer wish to support it.

>>714593652
see >>714592130

>>714594990
yeah thats the message you should be taking from that argument you smooth brain fuck. im saying rules and regulations can be used against corporations and they should have a far easier time abiding by them. this isnt a "government good" post.

also eat shit Thor

>>714592597
>What did Halo fans do to deserve this?
According to Microsoft? Enjoying Bungie's run of the series.

>>714590438 (OP)
since the law wouldn't be retroactive, devs would simply have to start developing games with the idea that after a few years it'll be running on private servers.
sure it's not viable with some current games on the market, but this shit wouldn't apply to that, so it's a non-argument.

>>714590438 (OP)
babel media going fucking hard on this board about this

>>714593593
>It wouldn't apply to private servers because a private server is outside their ability to police
That's what I was saying, they're literally bitching and moaning about being able to be sued when the liability on the user's speech is on the hood of the random admin of said private server, and I would hardly imagine a random server with like 1k players tops would be noticed by the police unless they rape children or get together to kill someone.

>>714593501
YOU lost fucker, both in life and on here you third-worlder piece of shit.

Popular games end up getting private servers made anyway, MMOs are a good example, yeah shitty MMO's have disappeared and I'm sure the 10 people who cared about it miss it
>But Overwatch
Shit.

>>714590438 (OP)
>eurokeks brag about how many rights they have
>one of the few issues they actually take initiative for is immediately shot down by coalitions and interest groups
>gets raped on their way home by mohammeds

>>714593515
Now you have to do a version of 'Only a Fool would say That', before they do.

>>714593564
We won with BBB and we're gonna win this, you lost.

>lobbying group called "VIDEO GAMES EUROPE"
>does not have a single european gamedev company in their ranks or as members
they're afraid

>>714598065
>trooperkeks brag about winning
>giant larva shivers bravely in fear
>defeated again earth scum lol

apple couldn't lobby their way out of getting raped by the EU, why does the dying jannetty games industry think they have a chance?

>>714598305
Wait I didn't even realise how bizarre that is until you pointed it out.
What's going on?
Why are American corporations in the European discussion?

>>714598305
Ubisoft is French

>>714598135
Have you played the most popular game of all time? AKA Tetris? Free game developed in a university in Soviet Union for no money.

>>714591827
"server upkeep" costs fucking nothing

>>714593986
>Do you think moldman + ecelebs are going to be good argumentators in favor of this over the well spoken armies of contracted laywers that companies like EA, Blizzard, and Activision can afford?
Fuck no, Ross is autistic and not very intelligent

>>714598835
>p-please think about the usa we can't afford our biweekly ceo only socal yacht trips if we have to spend extra on making games available after eos :((
is what im betting on

>>714594231
>Illegal content stops being illegal when it's on a player owned server? bro are you fucking retarded? the LAW keeps working after it goes into the hands of players, why do people keep making these shit arguments about the law like suddenly private servers are exempt from being held accountable for that shit?
If players host private servers and use it to share illegal content, the developers of the game can be held liable

>>714590438 (OP)
>combat unsafe community content
Sorry sweety we're pulling your life support. If you continue to live you might see a crude drawing of a penis or the nigger word. Much better you die pure and innocent.

>>714590438 (OP)
>I-I... HAVE NO ARGUMENTS AGAINST T-THIS...
I do.

Their website is purposely aping the presentation of the official EU government bodies to pass themselves off as an official authority, rather than what they are: an industry lobby group consisting of plants and shills. The entire website, including this statement, should be seized by the authorities for being wilfully misleading and unduly influencing the democratic process.

>>714598305
Ubisoft is from France.
Granted, they have studios in a bunch of places, and some of their biggest studios are in French Canada, but still

>>714592130
>law comes into effect
>the parties that don't wanna distribute their software have to change in order to make ends meet
>new contracts allow sharing some of the binaries, or prepackaged dedicated server hosting software
that was easy

>>714599442
Ross is not the face of the petition anyway, he won't have an official presence in this unless he's being asked to.

What is the 4chan moderation team statement on /v/ become a Reddit European PCmasterrace dumping ground and full of off topic e-celeb draba with a shitton of PC fanboy circlejerk

>A whole bunch of tech illiterate retards gang up on some youtube spastic because they don't like his attitude
>Turns out the spastic was right all along
LMAO

>>714599716
So you expect a drastic change in copyright law itself, just for your video games?

>>714599762
>Ross is not the face of the petition anyway
yes he is

>>714590438 (OP)
>PLEASE STOP SIGNING

>>714599841
No, if they don't wanna release them they can just code it in a way so that it can be run in a stripped down, but still playable way on a computer. Or they can just not do it. Simple regulation: Do this or don't do it at all in this specific case.
People who shout about copyright law don't get what they're talking about in this case.

>>714599853
Sorry wrong terms used, I meant as officially he isn't a member of it, he won't be influence the decisions of the meetings if they ever happens. The pic show the members of the initiative and his name is not on the list, that Daniel dude and the other members will be doing that job instead.

>>714590438 (OP)
>Spiders are your friends and would never want to harm you, protection from spiders is irrational and unviable
>Spiders Europe

>>714593124
Good luck when some kid tries to play one of these servers and gets his PID stolen due to no security. In Europe the people who made the game will be at fault.

>>714599819
First time on 4chan? Welcome dear sirmadam it whatever the fuck you want to call you'reself.
Its been this way for over 10 years now.

>>714599551
>If players host private servers and use it to share illegal content, the developers of the game can be held liable
People have tried to host illegal content on official servers and the game devs didn't even get in trouble because they always made sure to act in compliance with the law.

People aren't automatically liable for no reason, always act in accordance with the law and you won't get fucked by it.

>>714590438 (OP)
Reminder that this whole thing only exists because retards willingly purchased live-service ubislop and act shocked when it got shut down. Pointless e-celeb movement since most games have 0 relevance to this

>>714599467
i've already seen this faked edit posted on twitter like 50 times
it's fucking insane how hard shit from here still gets siphoned

>>714590438 (OP)
Anyone whos against SKG is a shill faggot. And seeing how many there have been in these types of threads its clear /v/ is well over 60% paid shill faggots now. This isnt even a righty lefty debate. It's a thing both sides agree on. Fuck off and die shills. Jump off a building you pathetic faggot.

>>714592083
> Forced Apple to use USB-C on iPhones.
> Forced Apple to open up iOS to third-party storefronts.
> Forced Apple to open up iOS to sideloading apps.
> Forced Apple to drop the restrictions on in-app payments having to go through the Apple Store.
> Forced Apple to drop the commission on transactions not going through the Apple Store.
> Forced Apple to offer browser choice.
> Forced Google to offer browser choice.
> Forced Google to be clear about their privacy policies.
> Forced Google to stop connecting data about users across multiple services.
> Forced Google to drop the restrictions on in-app payments having to go through the Play Store.
> Forced Google to drop the commission on transactions not going through the Play Store.
> Forced Meta to be clear about their privacy policies.
> Forced Meta to stop connecting data about users across multiple services.
> Forced Meta to not be able to press tracking ads on users under the legal grounds of 'legitimate interest' or 'necessity of contract'
> Forced Microsoft to offer browser choice.
> Forced Microsoft to loosen their hold over Windows Update and when it installs updates.
> Forced Microsoft to respect users' browser choice and not try to weasel in Edge everywhere.
> Forced Microsoft to make Edge uninstallable.
> Forced Microsoft to turn down the level of telemetry sent by Windows.
> (pending) Forced Microsoft to allow using Windows 11 without a Microsoft Account
> By way of having export control over ASML, the ONLY company in the world capable of making the EUV chipfabs that bake the chips that power ALL the world's modern computer hardware, they effectively make Silicon Valley and anything in it, on it, attached to it, related to it, etc. their little bitch.

KNEEL

>>714599551
>If players host private servers and use it to share illegal content, the developers of the game can be held liable
No they can't

>>714599990
>they can just code it in a way so that it can be run in a stripped down
christ you're so naive it actually hurts.
A lot of video games today are developed in such a way that the publisher do not have the legal right to redistribute the source code of the game fully (or even at all, in some cases); software copyright and code ownership is a lot more complicated than anons ITT realize. Often, your best bet is that some disgruntled employee leaks the source code (illegally), allowing the community access to it. Yes, there are some scummy companies that won't redistribute their source code for selfish reasons, but sometimes they legally just can't as they don't retain the full right to do so and the cost to rewrite the game's framework to avoid that problem is far too high for a game that's reached EoL already. You might as well tell them to rewrite their entire game's engine in many cases.

>>714593501
>The brightest minds in the industry
I'm sorry?
Who now?
I can barely make out some people over there, stumbling in the dark.
If those are the brightest minds - they might need a change of lightbulb.

>>714600584
>A lot of video games today are developed in such a way that the publisher do not have the legal right to redistribute the source code of the game fully
Which is why a legislation would force them to stop doing retarded shit like this
>and the cost to rewrite the game's framework to avoid that problem is far too high for a game that's reached EoL already
Good thing it's not retroactive so they can plan for that from the start and make a game that doesn't brick when the proprietary license runs out on their end
>You might as well tell them to rewrite their entire game's engine in many cases.
If it takes some pain to get rid of cancer then we'd be all the better for feeling that pain.

>>714600482
It's incredibly weird to see the EU do good things for consumers while at the same time pushing for the most draconian shit you've ever heard of like their Nth attempt to force through online IDs.

>>714598065
>one of the few issues they actually take initiative for is immediately shot down by coalitions and interest groups
Didn't stop the EU from cutting through Apple's bullshit and forcing them to open up iOS to alternate storefronts and sideloading, now did it?

>>714600482
Don't forget forcing phone makers they MUST have replaceable batteries, compatible with third party products before 2027 hits otherwise they can't sell shit in Europe.

>>714600584
That's why the shit is not gonna be retroactive, the new regulations will apply only to new products past a certain year, they will have plenty of time for software and games developers to create a new software that will fit the criteria.

>>714600735
>Which is why a legislation would force them to stop doing retarded shit like this
No it wouldn't, as this extends beyond video games and into the territory of software licencing copyright as a whole. A video game movement is not going to change that.
>Good thing it's not retroactive so they can plan for that from the start
easier said than done, there isn't always a reasonable FOSS/copyleft alternative to implement.
>If it takes some pain to get rid of cancer then we'd be all the better for feeling that pain.
Now you're just being silly.

>>714599821
There was only one tech illiterate retard and he got outed a bit ago.

>>714598835
They're able to register as a formal industry interest group because they have commercial activity in the EU.

>>714600584
No you don't understand we just HAVE to build with asbestos!

>>714599841
No? Sublicensing agreements that allow redistribution aren't a new thing.
Adobe had these for literal decade with fonts.
Microsoft had these for literal decades with video codecs shipping bundled with Windows.

>>714590796
Can someone please explain what the fuck "unsafe community content" is? Its clearly stated seperately from illegal content

>>714601164
No you don't understand, you just HAVE to build the whole fucking car

>>714600279
They don't get in trouble because they put in the effort to remove it
They can't do that with private servers

>>714600486
It's happened before

>>714601259
I think you'll find that if you were to deploy a file sharing system on your server you'll be held liable for failing to moderate it rather than creator of the software you run on it. What a stupid fucking argument.

>>714600995
>No it wouldn't, as this extends beyond video games and into the territory of software licencing copyright as a whole. A video game movement is not going to change that.
Not if it's made explicitly to target video games. There was never at any point anybody gunning for software as a whole, even though that probably has even wider appeal.
It's entertainment software and is very explicitly not used in the way that commerical or industrial software is used and it's pretty much common sense that this is the case. A regulation from the perspective of retaining customer fairness but also preserving art would cover for it.
>easier said than done, there isn't always a reasonable FOSS/copyleft alternative to implement.
You're being ignorant. What do these middleware services do that is explicitly necessary for playing the game and isn't just coded in badly in a way that bricks it?
A private server does not need: Analytics, the ability to load balance thousands of players, and many other things. The only thing it realistically needs is the core gameplay logic and a way to link up players. I've watched videos of devs explaining what services might prevent a game from being EoL'd properly and it's always this shit, rarely ever the fundamental multiplayer aspect. And if it is that aspect, then you'd simply have to take the pain and code it properly.
They go over it here in this video with a gamedev and with Louis who has contacts in software development: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gd2_FvvqyR0
>Now you're just being silly
...If you're retarded, maybe.

>>714601223
You aren't going to get any other company to agree to allow you redistribute the source code to their closed-source software library.

>>714590438 (OP)
>Private servers
So let me get this straight: Video game publishers can use the EULA to do shit like reserving their right to terminate your license at any time they want, but somehow they cannot use it to declare that they can't be held liable for what happens on unsanctioned servers?

>>714601330
It has literally happened before and gone to court, it's not a stupid argument

Watching the corpo bugs and their bootlicking faggots writhe is always a delightful treat

>>714601389
You don't need to, you can simply package it with a dedicated server hosting software in the compiled state like back in the 2000s. What is this retarded obsession with source code? It's only an option for devs that really want to. Hell, Ross even floated the option of just releasing design documents so people could "repair" the game with their own effort instead of having to reverse engineer leaked server hosting software like with World of Warcraft.

>>714601417
>somehow they cannot use it to declare that they can't be held liable for what happens on unsanctioned servers?
They can and do but EULAs do not override the law

>>714601613
Source? Let's see it.

>>714601685
Which law makes them liable?

>>714601647
This. I keep coming to these threads just for that.

>>714590438 (OP)
Cool, law wont care about your wall of text so get to it faggots

>>714601685
What law?

>>714600748
You will want to read up on what they're ACTUALLY proposing and discard the FUD and attention-whoring.

The EU is actually planning a system based on zero-knowledge proofs, which basically is a type of double-blind claims verification:
They send you a cryptographic token answering a certain question such as "is person of legal age?" with either a yes or a no. The receiver of that token does not get any actual personal information identifying the user. Moreover, the EU does not get to track which recipients are receiving the token either. And the token itself contains no identifying markers that can later tie it back to your government identity.

They aren't planning online IDs.
They're planning a superior solution that will make online age verification and a hell of a lot of other things possible WITHOUT NEEDING ONLINE IDs.
And thus by extension, under the GDPR's data minimization principle it would also ALWAYS be illegal to request them.
It's all part of the big online privacy master-plan; removing any excuse potentially shady online services with poor security might have to know and process your real-world identity.

>>714590438 (OP)
>Would curtail developer choice
"Shareholders choice" devs are paid monkeys without any voice

>>714601259
Just make it so the legislation makes the private server hoster at fault for not securing their own network. I can run Windows XP unpatched for WannaCry/EternalBlue and get a fucking ransomware attack but you can sure fucking bet Microsoft would not lose a lawsuit about me running unmaintained software.

>>714601685
>shill trying to use our own argument against us without understand why it works for us

>>714601725
can't remember, it's happened a lot, mostly with non-video game software

>>714601739
Do I look like a lawyer? The point is any terms in an EULA don't override the law so the law might find you liable even if the EULA says you aren't

>>714600748
>>714601814 (cont.)
Also, if you're worried about data leaks with online IDs - worry about the US.
Worry about the fact that Trump opened up the entirety of the US government's databases to Palantir.

>>714601889
Again, what law? Unless you can tell us what WOULD make them liable, your entire argument is FUD "what if though"

>>714601859
I'm not taking any sides here

>>714601889
>can't remember, it's happened a lot,
I accept your concession.

>>714593986
>Now who the fuck do you think politicians will listen to AFTER all the multibillion dollar companies pay them off?
huuuuuh?? they tell us that they get absurdly high pay as european parliament members exactly for the reason that they can't be bribed...

>>714591827
>stop supporting game
>sell new game
>new game bombs because old game better
>cant garnish wages for new yatch

>>714590438 (OP)
Offer a full refund for all purchases + interest

>>714601969
Any law. The suggestion was "can't you just put a term in the EULA which means you can't be held liable", well that depends what the law says

>>714601363
>Not if it's made explicitly to target video games
As I said before, what you're asking for it a fundamental change to copyright law itself in that case. Software licensing is how copyright works for nearly all digital media, not just video games. There is nothing legally distinct about video games themselves versus software licensing. Video games ARE licensed software, and are built using licensed software.
>and a way to link up players
This is nowhere near as simple as you're trying to make it sound, possibly out of your own ignorance. Let's say, for example, you have an online game that implements a physics interaction system (that is synchronized with other players), it is wholly unrealistic to build a custom solution from scratch for that and a decent open-source solution practically doesn't exist. So, what do you do? You aren't legally allowed to redistribute the source code for your game's online physics engine, yet your game is imminently closing down due to being unprofitable. It's as I said before: sometimes your best hope is that a disgruntled employee just leaks it illegally.

>>714593986
I would hope a proper lawyer gets hired at that point.
Even Jobst knew he's be a nervous autistic mess in court.

>>714601995
I'm sorry were we having an argument?

>>714599336
I believe it.
If it's worth Gamigo paying to keep Rift running in 2025 then absolutely anything can be kept alive.

>>714593795
>>714598256
NTA but where can i see the progress besides the website itself? Like news to keep with the response about SKG?

>>714601739
No law makes them liable, I think.

Game servers are online platforms, but as long as things like ingame chats are direct-delivery only and are not stored for later retrieval, they operate only on ephemeral in-flight data and would probably be able to rely on 'mere conduit' clauses.

>1990-2000: games provide special tool to host dedicated servers
>now: NOOOOO YOU CAN'T DO THAT THERE'S LICENSED SOFTWARE NOOOOO
Who are you trying to fool with this FUD

>>714590438 (OP)
Don't worry that was written in April, I'm sure they've changed their minds by now.

Prediction:
Companies start offering private server hosting for a montly fee after the EOS of the main support
-They already have the files
-Means players have the option to continue playing the games at their own cost
-They still have control should anything happen
-It's another way for them to scrape money

>>714602226
Online platforms get held liable for the content on all them all the fucking time
Why do you think 4chan will instantly ban anyone saying they're under 18? Why do you think it says "All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster."

>>714602049
This. If my game has an expiry date and the money I gave you for it also has an expiry date.

>>714602231
Counter Strike has had dedicated server support for 20 years and works fine?!

>>714601259
Laws aren't arbitray, there has to be a reasonable means for you to react, then do something because the basis of law is the idea of your intentions, the cold hard outcomes and the idea of what should be enforced.

If it was ever put before a judge that someone was held accountable for illegal content being on a private server that they weren't running but instead created software that the content was being used to share the illegal content it would be thrown out because they would require.

>Direct involvement or inducement
or
>Knowledge and inaction

In which case, they fucking should be held legally liable.

>>714592168
> Misuses "extrapolation"
> Excuse others of not understanding the words they use

Holy projection.

>>714593986
>>714602069
I hope when the time comes they will set up a way to get fundraising. If anyone who wanted to keep their games chipped in a few dollars we could probably bankroll a team of lawyers for as many years as it takes.

For the price of one game on a Steam sale, DRM takes a hit and you would get to keep your purchased games forever? It sounds like a great deal.

>>714590438 (OP)
>PLEASE don't close this loophole we use to scam you, PLEASE! PLEEEEASE!!!
Even if this does lead to positive change I think I'm done paying money for Vidya, it's piracy or nothing from now on.

>>714602286
That is literally how MMOs work and eventually everyone stops playing.

>>714602027
All EU parliament members regularly have finances audited, afaik.
And they're raked over the coals over shit like wrongly declared expenses for a hotel dinner.

Pay-offs and bribes at the level of outright buying votes are highly unlikely.
This is the EU - not the US.

>>714602231
Why let your players run off to play private servers if you can just keep milking them for as long as it's profitable for you, and then force them to rebuy your asset-flipped sequel to repeat the whole process again?

>>714590438 (OP)
I will forever side with whichever side that doesn't have these faggots that larp as the opposition to try and undermine arguments.
It is THE single most pathetic and childish way to conduct yourself in an arguement

>>714602386
Care to extrapolate?

>>714602321
>Online platforms get held liable for the content on all them all the fucking time
Online platforms that store data for later retrieval and public dissemination, yes.
They don't count as 'mere conduit.'

>>714590438 (OP)
>many titles are designed from the ground up to be online only
So, maybe, I dunno, STOP DESIGNING GAMES THIS WAY?

>>714602575
4chan doesn't store data but has still be held liable for shit that happens here

Once again you gotta just make shit up or lie to have an argument against releasing the fucking server/client binaries after end of life.

There is no additional cost to releasing the server binaries.

>>714602286
>last patch for online server is making the game utterly shit itself
>oops we gotta shot down but dontworyw e make privy servokay?
>deliver private server without any downgrading to older ver
>release new game that had all the older ver's benefits and what players wanted
>repeat ad infinium
How often WILL this happen?

>>714602427
They already have
https://shop.usips.org/

>We can't just stop making games that rely on a central server because we make games that rely on a central server
maybe just don't make games that rely on a central server, just a thought

>>714602613
>4chan doesn't store data
If one anon makes a post, another can read that post 15 minutes later.
Threads are also archived.

4chan stores data for later public dissemination.
Game servers (without idiocy like persistent chat logs) do not.

>>714595136
>law comes into effect
>get absolutely ass blasted by EU prosecutors or comply with the law
Pick one

>>714602729
They kinda hope you believe private servers just don't exist for games that also rely on a central server like World of Warcraft.

>>714602729
That's why this is never going to pass
You're saying "don't make games in this particular way" even though it's not hurting anyone just because you don't like them
That's not how the free world works

>>714602774
You could do something in a video game and I could observe your action 15 minutes later, what's the difference?

>>714602613
>4chan doesn't store data
That hasn't been true since Braham threatened to blow up the Superb Owl back in 2005

>>714592597
>hire the marketing director for the single biggest flop in gaming history
Why tho

>>714602808
Well, the simple question is "how does the consumer benefit from the always online feature?". If there is no benefit, why is this a feature?

>>714602995
She sucked Bill Gates.

>>714602054
>Video games ARE licensed software, and are built using licensed software.
So what? Video games are not video games just because the law happens to say so. Anybody who can reason can easily see this. If it absolutely has to happen, it could absolutely be done. Hell, the EU's regulatory framework for video games already promote them as digital heritage, preservation could easily be pushed as part of that.
The commission has even looked into targeting video games using consumer protection before: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_831 so it's clearly something they're interested in.
>This is nowhere near as simple as you're trying to make it sound, possibly out of your own ignorance. Let's say, for example, you have an online game that implements a physics interaction system (that is synchronized with other players), it is wholly unrealistic to build a custom solution from scratch for that and a decent open-source solution practically doesn't exist. So, what do you do? You aren't legally allowed to redistribute the source code for your game's online physics engine
When the fuck was I talking about "distributing the source code for the physics engine"?
You can package it into the game and the server hosting software, compiled and everything like an old game.
>b-but there's no open source versi-
Nobody fucking cares. If the company who has the physics engine wants to stop making money or get overtaken by a competitor who actually wants to obey EU regulations they can fucking do it and die, simple as. Even then, it's not like they NEED to release the source code. This is just the same retardation repeated verbatim with no consideration for how things used to be done.
Again, there are plenty of developers who think this shit is perfectly possible. Talk to them instead.

>>714602808
>it's not hurting anyone
shutting down a live service game is hurting the consumers

>>714590438 (OP)
>curtail developer choice
>rights holder liable
>policy makers

>>714603027
>everything that doesn't benefit one particular group of people should be illegal

>>714602995
Sucked and fucked her way to the top.

>>714603097
if you don't like live service games don't buy them, it's that easy

>>714603172
That doesn't bring back the money I put into the perpetual license I bought which was unfairly taken away without recourse which means it hurt me in the wallet. Or do you support theft?

>>714603132
>a consumer movement is concerned about the benefits to the consumers
No shit, corporat.

>>714603256
You need to read the terms and conditions of what you bought because it wasn't a perpetual license

>>714603262
Way to completely miss the fucking point

>>714603317
>please read the license to steal

>>714599336
Then why are servers shut down at all?

>>714602995
4/10 white girls with useless degrees give the absolute best most mind blowing soul sucking blowjobs. All white women are whores, but their sexual talents and inversely correlative with how ugly and useless they are.

>>714601240
nude mods probably.

>>714603356
If you paid for a license that could be terminated at any time and it was, nothing was stolen

>>714599336
b-but the dedicated vm needed to host a server for 50 players takes sooo many resources

>>714603132
>At least a decent chunk of a country worth of people vs a handful thousand faggots who work in publishing companies
Gee I wonder who the government should side with

>>714603403
They are very cheap
They get shut down when literally nobody is playing on them

>>714603317
Terms and conditions aren't in fact law.

>>714601240
Porn mods for kids games.
Imagine there's like a Hello Kitty MMORPG for example, it shuts down but due to laws resulting from Stop Killing Games it gets private servers after EOL, some kid stumbles upon a copy of this cute kids game and connects to a private server only to find it filled with hardcore pornography and furries yiffing everywhere

>>714603445
In democratic countries people have rights, the majority doesn't get to opress the minority

>>714603425
Yes it is. The EULA is unfair to consumers and is not above law.

>>714603478
Correct, there's also no law against selling a license that can be terminated at any time

>>714603425
It was, because this kind of terms of agreenment is actually illegal under European law. You can't just write anything you want in the EULA, you know. That's one of the reasons SKG was created.

>>714603531
If we put it up to a vote the consumer side would win every time.

>>714603425
We should change that then. Good thing SKG exists. You stupid retard. What do you think the whole movement is about? You think people don't notice your jewish tricks? It's not because it is legal that it can remain legal forever if you hurt your consumer's trust. Fuck your license, give the servers and go kill yourself.

>>714603403
They don't want you to play the old game, they want you to buy the new one.
This other guy: >>714603459 - a naive fool.

>>714603616
>this kind of terms of agreenment is actually illegal under European law
There are some laws in every country about what's a fair software license, but being able to terminate online services counts as fair

>>714603571
>there's also no law against selling a license that can be terminated at any time
Oh nononono...

>>714603425
>You buy a Gran turismo 4, 20 years ago, still works without internet connection, you can play it whenever you want.
>You buy a Gran turismo 7, newest game, you cannot play it without uninterrupted internet connection. And you are on the mercy of publisher that they let you play the game,
>Both games are single player racing games
So what changed?

>>714603668
>Give me something I didn't pay for
Who's Jewish exactly?

>>714603721
>So what changed?
Developers decided to add pointless online connectivity so they could make more money

>>714603509
not him, but that sounds like a non-issue for me
like 100% more likely they will see furry porn in twitter than playing in a minecraft jenny server

>>714603403
Planned obsolescence. They want us to buy their new game, so they shut down the old one in order to try and force our wallets

>>714593564
It already scared Ubisoft into making offline patches for a couple of their games, 6 months ago.
It can't "go nowhere" because it already went somewhere.

>>714603721
>buy a physical copy of Crysis from 18 years ago
>game can't install because it can no longer connect to the SecuROM activation servers to authentificate my Limited Lifetime Activation license
This is not a new problem by any means

>>714603751
The ones trying to subvert this as if they were the victim of the populace getting abused because they think their license can protect them of their actions. Licensing is a travesty of a business model and does not protect you from the actual law the request companies, jews, to give support to the player's purchase: access to the video game they paid for.

>>714603058
>Video games are not video games just because the law happens to say so
The software libraries that video games frequently need to use are not in themselves video games, or even strictly video game related, hence why you're asking for a change in software copyright itself. All I can say is "good luck with that"...
>When the fuck was I talking about "distributing the source code for the physics engine"?
It was an example to explain the problem in a way that typically could block a company from redistributing the source code or server hosting tools of a game.
>You can package it into the game and the server hosting software
You may not have the right to even do that, in some cases
>If the company who has the physics engine wants to stop making money
But that's the thing: they already made their money. The company using their proprietary online physics engine and physics server solution had already paid for the license to implemen into their game, but that does not extend to the right to redistribute the source or SDK of that engine itself, and therein lies the issue as it's a catch-22 for the publisher to ever release the source code (or even the server SDK) to the public as they are barred by the hands of the third party engine. This is why it's not always a trivial "dump the source & SDK online", and I assume this is why VGE made this recent statement, it's not a realistic demand for a large number of games to adhere to as many don't have the choice.

TL;DR some games are cucked by the third party librares, engines, or middleware that they needed to use to build the game in the first place, so their hands are often tied.

>>714599442
>not very intelligent
Let me guess, you are way smarter than him, right?

>>714601814
>It's not a online ID
>It's a online ID that get reused through every website so they can make a profile about what that ID use just like what google has always been doing using only your IP
Oh yea, completely different

>>714603973
>Licensing is a travesty of a business model
What alternative do you suggest?

>>714590438 (OP)
>statement on SKS
>does not actually pertain to the movement

What was the point of this?

>>714604000
yes

>>714603920
True, but does a version of Crysis exist without drm? Yes, and its fully playable.

>>714593986
Do you think they are going to have a phoenix wright style battle on the floor of the EU parliament, you anime-brained dingus?

AHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA

>>714591181
>saying nigger, posting porn
you do realise the 'community' servers will be 10 times as ridiculous, try joining some kind of community server for a dead game right now, it will be full of tranny and free palestine shit and they will ban you for not being fully on board with their gay little clique. these 'communities' outside of the natural very small and very dedicated groups are always horrible horrible cesspools filled with terminally online retards, making this shit mainstream will fill it with bluesky users

>>714604062
They're trying to shut it down. They're afraid.

Seethe Eurocucks.

>>714604038
Like it was before, you sell the game and that's it. It shouldn't cost you money to release server code. It only does because you abused your licensing model and now that people are tired of that shit it will hurt companies. Reap what you sow motherfucker.

>>714600393
Must suck when you do not have a monopoly on lying. Pretty weird that people are falling for something this obviously retarded with @IDF and all.

>>714603692
The EU law literally prevents the body providing the licence from revoking this licence for no reason.
Just because you put it in your EULA that you can revoking "for no reason" like Blizzard did, it doesn't mean you are legally allowed to, because EULAs are not legally binding.

>>714604168
>you sell the game
Yes but what are you selling? You're selling a license to play it. You're not selling a physical object, because a game is intellectual property, it exists as an idea. You have a license to play it

>>714590438 (OP)
RIGHT TO PLAY (but only when we say so)

>>714604191
>for no reason.
Yeah, thats why they come up with a reason, like nobody was playing the game or the company went bankrupt

>>714603721
I hate GT7 with a passion of a burning sun, this game as a service bullshit infiltrated everything now.

>>714590438 (OP)
>the decision is multi faceted
next line
>actually we just do it because we want to improve out bottom line and don't care about consumers.

>>714604232
But the same applies to movies and books. Yet, I can physically buy a book and keep it on my shelf. I can even sell it to someone else if I want to. Hell, I can buy an e-book and keep in on my tablet.
What's the different between a book and a videogame?

>>714604232
You sell the software. Intellectual properties don't exist. If the software can be copied, then too bad for you, maybe don't try to sell ideas like you call them. Selling nothing will only hurt you in time when people realize they paid for nothing, as it is the case now.

>>714603998
>it's not a realistic demand for a large number of games to adhere to as many don't have the choice.
Only because of how they are currently developed. Games that already exist won't be touched by this.
>But that's the thing: they already made their money.
Haha, no. This is not retroactive, so they did not make their money. The simple fact of the matter is that if they want to make business with devs that release games in the EU after any kind of legislation is implemented (whether part of a larger video game framework like they've considered or not) then they'll simply have to allow for at the very least packaging their stuff into server hosting software if the devs aren't willing to code a game that can work without their middleware. And that's from the starting line of development when they make a contract, not during the final EoL process.
>Their hands are often tied
They are tied artificially.

>>714604124
This cannot be fucking true, its like you would show a red square to those people and they would say its blue circle...

>>714604409
You can also buy a video game and put it on your shelf and sell it to someone else

>>714604421
>Intellectual properties don't exist.
According to the law they do

>>714604124
Please god let them make these types of statements before the EU commission.

>>714603998
Sounds like devs need to stop using those engines from now on the än if they want to sell in europe. Or engines make their licencing less retarded, that is an option too.

>>714604543
They only exist because it is an idea enforced by the law. If the law didn't exist then it would not exist. You can't own ideas.

>>714594231
>>714599551
>>714600279

if every game faces the prospect of ending up like a tf2 mario kart server then something will be done about it, these people don't care about the law, they're above the law and they won't tolerate that scale of infringement. just look at switch emulators, they didn't use any nintendo source code, they disavowed piracy at every turn and they still got shitcanned
>People aren't automatically liable for no reason, always act in accordance with the law and you won't get fucked by it.
lmfao yes they fucking are

>>714604559
you have no clue what you're talking about

>>714604141
wow just like community servers already. join a different one or even host your own you fucking retard zoomer cocksucker

>>714604443
So you do want a drastic change to copyright law of all software, as this extends well beyond video games themselves.
Well, good luck with that!

>>714590438 (OP)
You've lost.

>>714604492
But the writer of a book wont barge into your home and take it away, when some publisher decides its not worth selling anymore.

>>714604124
??????????????????
Video game companies hate preserving anything. The only time they MIGHT preserve something is if something's popular enough to get remastered (not true preservation) or fan-resurrected and then sanctioned (often just DMCAd)

>"No see we can't let you play our games after we shut them down because we can't control whoever sets up private servers after to protect you!"
Just say you don't care because you want people to stop playing old game and buy new game you disingenous fucks.

>>714602850
Only if you externally recorded the gameplay at the moment it was happening.
The difference is the platform itself wasn't storing anything for later dissemination.

>>714604654
So? Not my problem.

>>714604617
if the law didn't exist then you couldn't own land, or property, or objects, or anything
are you 12?

>>714604492
Yes, but my copy of a videogame suddenly stops working at random, while I can watch a movie or read an e-book I bought years ago till the end of time.

>>714604654
sums up most of the thread, honestly.
Bunch of teenagers that have zero clue about software development and software licensing, and apparently expect copyright law to change overnight because of a few crappy video game closures.

>>714604687
The developer of a video game won't barge into your house and take it away
are you retarded

>>714602808
>You're saying "don't make games in this particular way" even though it's not hurting anyone just because you don't like them
it's hurting the consumer by denying them access to something they brought

>>714603172
>just don't buy it
you can say that for anything, it's literally a whine. consumer protections like refunds exist exactly because when you sell a product it's expected some minimum standards... like not killing a game without an end of game plan

>>714590438 (OP)
all of this is trifling, that is to say "not worth considering"
to say it in even more blunt terms, these criticisms aren't problems with the stop killing games initiative. they are fabricated problems.

>>714604729
>retarded and proud

>>714593420
NOT SO FAST

>>714604790
>consumer protections like refunds
Yes, a refund is a good consumer protection, unlike forcing developers to make their game a certain way

>>714602620
Under Article 19 of EU Directive 2019/770 - which has already been transcribed into national laws of all EU member states and currently is law in all of them, consumers would be entitled to retain access to the prior version with full support and functionality intact, or to terminate their contract and be owed a refund in full.

The EU does not shit around with this kind of thing any more.

>>714604663
>Just mandate that software geared for interactive entertainment should come with an EoL plan in mind so that it can be played without the publisher servers
>Heh, you want to change the entire copyright system!
On opposite day. If individual countries can pressure publishers to unfuck lootbox mechanics and the EU itself looked into that then it's clearly not as far off as we think.
All arguments against SKG basically boil down to complaining that fridges have to stop using freons because it'd cost money to develop something new.

>>714604775
Ubisoft barged I to peoples internet and took away their game, so yes they can, do, and will continue to

>>714604710
This, this whole fucking thing is a bout planned obsolescence, problem is video games got infiltrated by this, its a cancer that's hidden.

>>714604775
The developer of the videogame can just shut it down remotely, because of this "always online" feature that most publishers can't even explain what is it for.

>>714604731
Owning is only enforced by how you defend your property, hiding behind the law that does it for you does not change that. Nothing is owned. When you die, you will be no different than someone who owned nothing. If you can't grasp the concept that property is not real and must call me a child to make your stand, then you lost.

>>714604821
It is an issue between devs and engine makers, I just want my games and apply legal force to make companies to do what I want

>>714604907
No they disable the server your game connects to
You still own the game, it's just useless

>>714604892
>unlike forcing developers to make their game a certain way
good thing that's not happening. i'm glad you agree that SKG is necessary

>>714603721
>Juice machines from 2000 years ago still work
>Juice machine from 10 years ago stopped working when the company died
It's simple, retards keep funding that shit and will keep doing it if someone doesn't stop them by force.

>>714603998
stop being a disingenuous asshole shill. Nobody is asking for proprietary source code. stop deflecting with this retarded shit you know is untrue. It's unbecoming to lie through your teeth like some kind of sexual ferret

>>714600440
>Paid
You know they're doing it for free

>>714604775
>buy a game
>it says "internet required to play"
>10 years later: ubi takes the game away
>well fuck I still have internet, but cannot play
>Sorry for inconvenience please buy The crew 2!

>>714604972
>If you can't grasp the concept that property is not real
That's literally what I'm saying
If the law says IP exists, then it exists

>>714604769
But you don't understand. If government were to ban incandescent lightbulbs then we would just live in the dark.

>>714604892
>unlike forcing developers to make their game a certain way
the way being the ability to kill access to consumers at any second... sounds like something that should have been changed years ago

>>714605001
>no they just delete all the words out of the ebook. you still own it, but it's useless
illegal

>>714604979
At least you're honest but that's not how democracies work

>>714605001
>You still own the game, it's just useless
I'm glad you can see the necessity of SKG. we're on the same page

>>714605020
SKG is forcing developers not to use a a certain business model. It would be saner to just make them provide a refund, which is probably how the law works already

>>714605109
It only does by enforcing but does not make it more real, hence why the SKG movement which revoke the licensing model of the intellectual "properties" of companies abusing the fact that they "own" it. They don't, and they should be pay for their abuse.

>>714604659
host my own server so i can play by myself? no thanks. i'd rather just play the fucking game online with randoms as usual, if it gets shut down it gets shut down, 10 years was a good run for the crew, nobody is expecting that much

>>714605198
>SKG is forcing developers not to use a a certain business model.
it isn't. you can read their website to inform yourself before wasting any more of your own time getting upset over nothing.

>>714604775
>You buy a book
>there is a chemical compound inside that can burn a book remotely
>after 10 years publisher activates this compound, destroying a book
>please buy our seccon edition!
This is the state of video game nowadays.

Reminder that there are quite literal copy paste frameworks of chink gacha that live and die within 5months-2 years that works so well that pulling the plug is literally taken into account by the players and is seen as completely natural.
It will NEED U.S. laws in place as well to actually coerce more into taking it seriously.
Otherwise companies will just triple down on going full chink and ignore EU entirely.

>>714605246
>why the SKG movement which revoke the licensing model of the intellectual "properties" of companies
It doesn't
Nothing about SKG has anything to do with IP law
Jesus christ this place is retarded

>>714605257
ok. nobody is stopping you from doing that you dumbfuck. but if someone wants to play the shit they bought, that's also their consumer right to do so

>>714605156
Democracy is for the people and corporations are not the people

>>714605001
>it's just useless
And that's a breach of the EU consumer law. When you buy a product (or even a licence, because I already know you are going to be autistic about it), the consumer expects it to be functional. If you somehow revoke the functionality, you better have a good reason. And no "it's not longer profitable" isn't a good enough reason, because why should the customer care?

>>714604902
Anon, that is a huge legislation change that would affect all software copyright, it's not going to happen that way.
At most, the pressure would be put on the video game publishers themselves, leading to them to never use third party licensed software that doesn't match whatever open license that would now become mandatory, severely limiting the available tools for game development (especially for online multiplayer games, where frankly no good FOSS solutions really exist for most kinds of games). If you want to actually make a change: contribute to open-source physics and networking libraries yourself if you're able, as these are key areas that often fuck video game preservation in the ass the hardest.

>>714590438 (OP)
They are basically saying that Piracy is not a right. It's a duty. And you are responsible for paying for shit or just getting it from the internet without compensating these dogshit companies and corporations who only care about shareholders.
They don't give a fuck about the players. The players should not give a fuck about them.
Simple. It truly is that simple.
Never feel bad about pirating anything. Encourage it. Enable it. Welcome it.

>>714605281
Yes it is, it says that if a single player game shuts down then you have to provide a way for the player to continue playing it
That's the end of the live service single player game business model

>>714590438 (OP)
Real answer; they dont want private servers to be an option because itd open floodgates for players to escape microtransactions and skinnerbox mechanics.

>>714601972
You're either a shill or someone fighting for consumer rights here, and you'd know that if you read what SKG is actually about

Guys, is it true that SKG wants it to be legal to throw pipebombs into devs' homes??

>>714605103
and now you want to monkey's paw your way in to the following:

>""""buy"""" game
>open disclaimer
>This game includes online features available for a minimum of 2 years, after which servers may be discontinued, and no server software will be provided

>>714605293
>after 10 years
this is actually better than gaming. with live service games, you have no clue when you lose access. could be a month or a year or 5 years. it's a complete mystery

>>714605339
Democracy is for everyone
Imagine a world where companies didn't exist
You would have literally nothing, because everything you have is made by a company

>>714603692
>but being able to terminate online services counts as fair

From the annex of the EU Unfair Contract Terms Directive (UCTD) 1993/13, which lists all types of terms of contract that must - legally required - always be interpreted as unfair terms and may not bind consumers:

> 1. Terms which have the object or effect of:
> [..]
> (c) making an agreement binding on the consumer whereas provision of services by the seller or supplier is subject to a condition whose realization depends on his own will alone;

This one is actually quite humorous, because it means any terms of service that state online services can be terminated at a whim, can also NEVER make the agreement or ANYTHING in it binding on the consumer.

>>714605326
You take it too literally. It doesn't revoke their licensing model but it severely hurt it because now companies can't abuse the fact they only sell licenses. Why would they do that if now they must ensure the fact that the game must be playable even without their support? The main argument companies give with licensing is to be able to provide services for the players, which falls completely flat if they must be forced to provide support beyond their license.

>>714605470
Corporations are not even real.

>>714605387
>middleware licenses are no longer compatible
>oh no people arent using our software anymore, better update our licenses so the market uses it again
damn that sounds literally impossible we should just kill all video games instead

>>714605426
Yeah thats the point, to at least inform customer, also do you think company would do what you said or just make a patch for offline play.

>>714605515
>It doesn't revoke their licensing model but it severely hurt it
No it doesn't
You have literally no clue what you're talking about

>>714605426
>minimum of 2 years
Doesn't comply with current EU law.
Try again.

>>714605060
on the contrary, I'm all for FOSS, our studio moved to using Godot because of it, but the reality is that building entire games using only FOSS libraries is not reasonable for every type of game as, to put it bluntly, a lot of FOSS options are crap or not maintained well enough for a large project.

>>714602380
CS2 have server tools, ofc everyone play on matchmaking but nothing prevents you from playing on custom servers besides lack of item drop.

Hell, CSGO still have support despite being phased out and delisted.

>>714605401
i think you are motivated to be confused over the situation.
it doesn't say what you're claiming, and that conclusion isn't necessary.

>>714605387
>Anon, that is a huge legislation change that would affect all software copyright, it's not going to happen that way.
On the contrary, using a popular new age medium like video games to push the ball on this with software in general is a good move. Normal people wouldn't care about software shitting the bed, but in the future when it might shit up cars and systems that run homes and apartments, people are gonna see red really fast.
That this showed a decent chunk of at least one EU country sees this as a problem is if nothing, a great show of concern, something greater than the lootbox scare in my opinion which absolutely should also have resulted in regulation.
>If you want to actually make a change: contribute to open-source physics and networking libraries yourself if you're able, as these are key areas that often fuck video game preservation in the ass the hardest.
On the contrary, pushing this to reality would force money into either open source development or closed source development specifically for running video games. Again, the "pain" that's felt is a good thing because it's basically just growing pains if it ever happens.

>>714605580
so middleware devs might have to spend some time and effort updating their licenses so the big boys keep using them. oh, the horror

>>714605549
Yes it does. You didn't even answer my question. Why would companies use a licensing model if they can't kill games anymore? Their "support" only extend to their license, but SKG doesn't allow them to do that anymore since they must ensure a way for games to be playable beyond their license. All you have done is call me retarded, so it just leads me to believe that you're the retard who doesn't know how everything holds.

>>714605126
LED bulbs were absolute dogshit for years, incandescent is still better and I'm tired of pretending it's not. Really bad example to support your point, anon.

>>714605314
>companies will just give up on billions of dollars by pulling out of the EU market

>>714605434
>it's a complete mystery
And notice that you are operation on gentleman's agreement, where the ball is 100% in the publisher's ballpark. If they are nice enough, they will give you a heads up that they are shutting down the server and rendering your game useless. If they aren't, they are not obligated to. And that's not how it's supposed to work.

>>714603509
>Fearmongering about furries
>Thinking of the children
>On 4chan of all places
I'm sure the furry mods alone were what made them troon out

>>714604017
>It's a online ID that get reused through every website so they can make a profile about what that ID use just like what google has always been doing using only your IP
You generate new tokens for every requestor. they cannot be linked together across multiple services either.

>>714605648
What does it say then? Because I've read the material and watched the video, that's his idea, you can't shut down single player games, you have to provide a way for people to keep playing it when you end the service

>the industry gives players a fair notice

No it doesn't, that's kind of a major sticking point of this whole thing. A fair notice would be telling consumers exactly how long they can expect the game to work when buying it. But that is not happening.
I think this is probably the most realistic problem to be addressed in SKG. I would love true game preservation but the industry has gotten too used to not doing it and I dont see that changing
Forcing companies to inform customers about when their games could be shut down though is way less complicated and more feasible.

var startGame = false;
>if(!endOfService){
startGame = await getShitFromServers(username,Password);
}
else
{start game = true;)


is literaly this easy
dont (you) me

>>714605401
not him, but what the hell
it's insane to argue in favor of killing acess to single player games. like they are single player, there's literally no excuse since it doesn't affect anybody

>>714605698
Again, you have literally no clue what you're talking about, ALL software it sold to you as a license

>>714605421
No, only on publishers' homes.

>>714605696
You cannot simply "update your license" to a different software license type for something that has already been in distribution and deployed by others, that is not at all how it works.

>>714605330
there are no consumer rights, and you're an idiot for thinking there are, you can't twist these people's arms, they're a million times smarter than you and their sole purpose in life is to extract money from you, this shit is literally not broken, so why are you trying to fix it? the crew was online for like 11 years, seems okay to me. go ahead and reverse engineer a server unofficially if you want, why do you want to make my game more expensive, and supplied with an even worse disclaimer than right now to satisfy your gay little "consumer rights" polemic

>>714605804
IT IS MY HUMANE RIGHT TO PIPEBOMB A DEVELOPER'S HOUSE

>>714605543
see >>714605805

>>714605805
listen dude, if you make a Source engine game it comes with a free HAVOK license in perpetuity.
of course you can update licenses. saying otherwise is actually crazy. stop.

>>714605714
>pull out of EU
>let people use vpns
>encourage its use
>just deliver an opps we're sorrry we cant deliver here
>up the chink marketing
>win trillions because people will cuck out as long as company doesnt budge

>>714605867
>there are no consumer rights
>the shill shows his true face

>>714605867
>there are no consumer rights
The EU disagrees.

>>714605749
I think this is probably what's gonna end up happening.

No dedicated servers, just an extra label that says "This game will be shut down in 5 years" and a change to the EULA adressing that.

>>714605736
So you're saying that the EU will host a token service, free of charge, that will generate millions of tokens per seconds for all europe?

>>714604124
>You are now actively recalling the EU Commission laughing at Apple's claim that iOS Safari, MacOS Safari, and iPadOS Safari were different products before pointing out to them that Apple themselves SIMULTANEOUSLY TO THE HEARINGS had a marketing campagin running for 'One Safari' - integrated to be able to start something on one device and seamlessly pick up, continue, and finish it on another.

>>714605401
>single player
it applies to all games that you buy full price (no subscription) for a perpetual license
>business model
it's not a business model, it's a design directive like the Common Charger Directive

>>714605867
>why do you want to make my game more expensive
why are you threatening to raise game prices? are you a publisher? you sound evil and retarded

>>714606003
Which part of "the product has to be left in the functional state" part of the EU consumer law have you missed?

>>714605867
You will NEVER be a game publisher

>>714606035
>perpetual license
No such thing exists
>it's not a business model
live service games where you shut down the game when the service ends is indeed a business model

>>714605547
>to at least inform customer
who gives a flying fuck? informed about what? informed that they can basically do the same shit they did before, shut the game down whenever they feel like it? I knew that already dumbass, you're literally just making them more likely to shut it down and provide a worse service.
>>714605550
get fucked of course it does. there's all types of limited release games, namely Super Mario Bros. 35

>>714590438 (OP)
NAFOsisters....we couldn't save Ukraine...now we can't stop the games industry from dying...we're losing....

>>714590438 (OP)
>I-I... HAVE NO ARGUMENTS AGAINST T-THIS...
https://www.stopkillinggames.com/faq

>>714605916
this is patently false and you are a lying bastard

>>714605962
I don't think you're even following me at all, it feels like such a waste of damn time trying to explain software licensing to you people jesus christ

>>714606003
That actively does not go along with the EU's video game regulatory framework that they commissioned though

>>714590438 (OP)
>compliance with consumer protection laws
Then comply with the law that is being petitioned.

>many titles are designed from the ground up to be online only
Then stop making ground-up online only games if they're a risk to you

>they will curtail dev choice by making these videogames prohibitively expensive to create
You're not entitled to create videogames, nobody is forcing you to create videogames. If you're doing it for money move to another industry.

>>714590438 (OP)
>they would rather stop making online games than remove their censorship tools and lose ESG score
Your terms are acceptable.

>714606119
Please do not respond to shills. Just fill the thread with helpful information

>>714606146
There's no "minimum of X years" or "at least this long". You give a clear date.
Anything short of that won't do.

>>714605798
And it is what enables companies to kill game. With that changing, why would a company keep it up licensing models? You asked me to propose another business model, but in truth companies don't want any other models beyond screwing people over with the fact that they sell nothing like snake oil salesmen. They don't want to sell the software, they don't want people to "own" their software and rightfully do anything with it, because that would break the idea of owning things. You don't own anything, so stop trying to pretend you do by selling licenses. SKG is merely a first step to address the consequences of licensing. If you can't see beyond that then you are stupid.

>>714604232
>Yes but what are you selling?
In the EU you are selling a good.
The EU legally considers software under perpetual license that is paid for in-full and up-front, as a good.
Even if said software does not involve a physical carrier medium. The bytes are a good.

The license is treated as general terms and conditions ancillary to the contract of sale, but are not considered the product you bought. At all.

>>714606101
>>714606208
It's what SKG wants, but that doesn't mean it's gonna happen. Ross himself said that it's possible it's just gonna be that, a notice.

People are confusing the options the SKG is giving to what's actually honna be in the end.

Still, i could be wrong and they might actually force those companies to give it a proper end life support.

>>714606119
>>perpetual license
>No such thing exists
ok I see how retarded the shills are acting now.
you are a liar and I'll see you in hell
>>714606168
>following me
no idea what you are trying to say you faggot schizo, but you're still lying about software licenses.

>>714605685
>something greater than the lootbox scare in my opinion which absolutely should also have resulted in regulation.
???
But it did? In serveral territories, even...

>>714606208
>RECENT IP REFORMS LACK SPECIFICATION FOR THE VIDEO GAMES SECTOR
IPlawbros? what the fuck is this?

>>714605867
>why do you want to make my game more expensive
>games get more expensive and worse every year, with even more gargage to milk the player
>but allowing players to play single without a DRM server or to host local/private servers is too far

>>714606286
>With that changing
It's not changing
Licensing is literally the only way you can sell games, or any other media
Jesus christ

>>714606146
>Buy our game!
>Rent our game for at least 4 years!
Which game will sell better retard?

>>714601240
they don't want you saying nigger and installing big titty mods in your always online single player game

>>714606208
>>714606101
I mean I agree but I just dont see it happening. They'd sooner change the definition of videogames or whatever than actually force the entire industry to provide end of life plans.
I hope I get proven wrong though!

>>714606249
says fucking WHO???????? even if you were right, which you are not the clear date would obviously be 1/1/27 moron

>>714606293
>>following me
>no idea what you are trying to say you faggot schizo
Are you ESL?
>I don't think you're following me
is shorthand for: "I don't think you are following this conversation we are having", just so you're aware.

>>714605748
>What does it say then?
it says that the current situation of live service games is totally unacceptable, it posits some solutions but doesn't mandate those solutions as the only possible ones.
subscription based live service games (such as WOW, the most popular one on earth) complies with the initiative because:
1) the game remains playable without access to blizzard servers
2) access to blizzard servers is tied to an explicitly time based license where the start and end of the license are outlined and the customer is informed.

>Because I've read the material and watched the video
i'm revoking your media literacy award.
>you can't shut down single player games, you have to provide a way for people to keep playing it when you end the service
i'm giving it back to you.

part of the initiative is that informing customers that "your game license starts on [Date] and ends on [Date]" will inform their decisions.
the current state of live-service NFT games is just unacceptable. scamming gamers is not an acceptable business model.
making live service games is still possible without spending infinite money or invoking bad EULAs.

>>714606310
Not EU wide regulation as far as I recall, but it resulted in pressuring from the EU and some action from national governments, which is still something.

>>714606293
Software licenses aren't perpetual, they can be revoked

>>714606362
the thing I am referring to with this is not the licensing part you absolute buffoon but how companies can't kill games, literally how it is written a sentence before what you quoted. You can't even READ and you want to lecture me about how things work?

>>714606165
>bloody bitch bastard benchod!!

>>714606425
>says fucking WHO
The EU.
And you better make that date damn well clear of obvious to the consumer AT THE POINT OF SALE, or it's fining time.

>>714606435
oh I thought you got lost and assumed we were on twitter where followers is a commonly used nomenclature.
>>714606479
not for long

>>714590826
>I have one: Not my problem.
I hope Fortnite gets deleted with all the zoomer shite they bought Topkek.

>>714590438 (OP)
lmao eurocucks btfo

>>714606453
Saying "it's not acceptable" is not a fact so most of your post is just waffling
> informing customers that "your game license starts on [Date] and ends on [Date]" will inform their decisions.
If that were all then it would be fine, but he wants to make games provide an end-of-life plan, to be playable after they've expired, not just inform the user when they will expire

>>714606363
>Which game will sell better retard?
the best selling games are fucking absolutely shitty sports games with the WORST consumer practices ever, filled with fucking slop and microtransactions, a new one released every year.
the best selling game will be the ones with the biggest marketing budget of course

>>714606362
>Licensing is literally the only way you can sell games, or any other media
>americans actually believe that

>>714606479
>Software licenses aren't perpetual, they can be revoked
is this an acceptable state of affairs?

>>714605983
>chinks see that EU successfully protected their market against murrican slop
>apply the same legistlature
>homegrown gaming companies shine while slop makers die off

>>714606510
I can read, I'm reading you completely failing to understand software licensing

>>714606625
It's IP, you can't physically own it

>>714592130
>proprietary software libraries that they do not have the legal right to distribute.
These files can be legally acquired by the after shutdown supporters
Just dump your PS2 bios to play PCSX2

>>714606625
you are buying access to a copy you fucking ming. by definition, you don't own the game/movie/music you bought the rights to use it.
perpetual licenses are already a thing for all media purchases except video games.

>>714605426
This would fall afoul of the same thing that makes shrinkwrap EULAs non-binding: you weren't actively informed in plain intelligible language up front of purchase.

The thing would have to be a big banner with an expiration date, plastered over the top of the storefront webpage, or a big notice on the front of the box of a physical disc or cart.

>>714606356
yeah it is too far, they obviously won't go for it, and if they were made to they'd jack up the price or circumvent it by getting around it with some kind of game as a service loophole where they just sell you minimum 2 years of access to the game and maybe they'll keep it around longer if they want to

>>714606697
Good thing nobody is asking for ownership of the IP.

>>714606765
So what do you own? You own a license to play the game

>>714606453
>the game remains playable without access to blizzard servers
tbf this is only because players put in so much work to figuring out blizzard's magic that they could run the game themselves and it's only because of hundreds of no-name developers crashing against the game for years
https://www.getmangos.eu/forums/topic/9974-how-did-the-dev-team-do-it/
>What I do know of the early genesis of WoW private servers is second-hand knowledge gained from the devs who'd been around nearly from the the beginning. It all began when a simple WoW sandbox evolved into a full server called Stormcraft. Early WoW p-servers were primitive by today's standard and closed source. Much of the game's features did not work correctly, if at all, and there was little anyone could do because the various devs kept their program code and knowledge secret. WoWDaemon (usually abbreviated to WoWD) was the beginning of the modern projects you see now, programmed in C++ and using an SQL database.

>>714606796
No, I own the game.
Just like I own all the DRM free games I bought on GOG. They're all mine and there's nothing you can do about it, kike.

>>714606454
>Not EU wide regulation
It may be strongly regulared by the EU in the near future, as always legal changes just take a fucking eternity to happen but there's been talks about legislation on loot boxes in vidya by the EU for a while now.
for the zero anons ITT that speak legalese: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2023-0008_EN.pdf

>>714606796
that's right, a perpetual one they can't revoke to save a penny

>>714606697
>>714606765
I fucking lost brain cells...

>>714606004
The derived token generation happens inside the smartphone app of individual users. You only sign into the EU's own service once to generate a master token in the app.

>>714606860
>No, I own the game.
"the game" is intellectual property, owned by the people who created it

>>714606659
even though I clearly suggested to you that licensing shouldn't exist and even said they should sell the software, not the license? Even though I clearly told you that SKG making companies stop killing games making licensing even more redundant because they don't even own their "intellectual property"? Yeah right, as if you read and understood that after you called me retarded 3 times and said nothing else because you sit on that high chair pretending you know how it works because "licensing is the only option" even though it isn't, because again, like I said, companies can but don't WANT to. I'm done here, feels like answering a moron with his nose up his ass.

>>714593515
Nice style he got here, I usually don't like how these fags looked but he pulls it off in that pic

>>714606872
Well anon that's just more points in favor of SKG since it opens up the door to regulating practices regarding mechanics and/or bad practice within video games.

>>714606860
>I own all the DRM free games I bought on GOG.
Even in those cases, what you own is a license to play the game. You don't own all of the code and assets that were used to create said game, as those are legally distinct from the end product (the game itself)

>>714606796
So wait wait, please tell me what happens when I open buy Lord of the rings book and read first verse?

>>714606541
>source: my ass
there's nothing to stop companies selling limited online games as a service, i know this because i've already provided proof, super mario bros 35 was a limited time online game, if shit like this were to ever become law, which it won't because it's abject retardation and uninformed retard gobeldigook, but in a magical world when it did then game companies would just switch to a mario 35 model and figure out some way of making us pay more for the privilege

>>714606958
>I clearly suggested to you that licensing shouldn't exist
That just means you don't actually understand what licensing is because it's the only way you can "own" a game with IP law

>>714606952
Yes, they own the IP.
But I own the game. I can play it as much as I want, even 50 years from now I'll be able to play it as much as I want.

>>714606629
>Sign a contract
>Be upsetti spaghetti with the terms of the contract years later
You deserve to have your head caved in with a mallet.

>>714606613
When negotiating, you typically ask for as much as you can and then meet somewhere in the middle. SKG will ask for everything they WANT to happen, an end-of-life plan would be ideal but if the only concession publishers are willing to make is clearer expiry dates then that is still a (small) win for consumers.

>>714590796
Why do leftists always resort to cursing people out when they don't get their way? Is it because you're all raised by single mothers?

>>714607013
If you buy a physical book then you own the phyiscal book, that part isn't complicated
If it's an ebook then I dunno

>>714606952
IP is NOT the game

>>714606917
I guess it could work then, ignoring that the service will crash under the load during the first weeks.

>>714607041
>Yes, they own the IP.
>But I own the game
The game is IP. You own a license to access it
I swear this is like a fucking IQ test

>>714607029
YOU DONT AND NEITHER DOES THE COMPANY. HOW DID YOU NOT REGISTER THIS YET?

>>714604863
They got Nintendo, I support them now. Fuck SKG.

>>714601663
>you can simply package it with a dedicated server hosting software
Where does that software come from?
This shit doesn't come from thin air. An online multiplayer game that dies may have died due to a studio shutdown, there's nobody to build the dedicated server hosting software for that game left behind if they're all sacked.

>>714600482
>> Forced Microsoft to make Edge uninstallable.
Oh yeah, very based. Please flood my country with millions of brown terrorists while you're at it. God forbid a company do something I don't care about.

>>714603509
>Won't somebody please think of the children?!
Yeah, perhaps their parents should think about not giving their children unsupervised internet access.

>>714607163
No idea what you're trying to say
The company owns the IP for the game - you own a license to play it. That's how owning games works

>>714590438 (OP)
Okay, but how about a partial refund then? Retarded niggas probably spent good money over the years on live service games, so they are at least entitled to some form of compensation since preserving a live service game is out of the question

>>714607183
Most laws are not retroactive. They would have to pre-plan the dedicated server hosting during development and prepare it for the release build in case it crashes and burns.

>>714607272
>preserving a live service game is out of the question
No it isn't.

IS THE IP THE GAME OR NOT AAAAAAAAAAAH

>>714607075
EULAs do not supercede common law, bootlick.

>>714607225
There has never been a healthy child who has grown up with helicopter parents. If you don't even let your kids get privacy online, you're going to mess them up for life.

>>714590438 (OP)
saying the n-word has killed stop killing games

>>714606479
>Software licenses aren't perpetual, they can be revoked
The EU doesn't acknowledge EULA clauses that allow the other party to contract to terminate provision of service based on their own whims.
See >>714605508

For a software license to be deemed non-perpetual, you must either provide an actual end date, or objectively verifiable reasons under which provision of service could be ended.

>>714607272
yeah I'm sure refunding half your fucking sales at the end of the product life would be a perfectly viable solution.
fucking idiot.

>>714603509
a fucking "please think of the children!" argument
on motherfucking 4CHINZ
LMAO

>>714607358
There's a vast gulf between helicopter parents and just blocking porn and social media usage beyond a set timeframe.

>>714607358
Kids do not require internet access as a part of growing up.

>>714607396
Well I think we're in agreement that software licenses can be revoked

>>714590438 (OP)
> Carbon neutral Company
They are out of touch in more than one regard it seems.

>Actually you'll need to reinvent IP law to make regulating video games like this possible!
Meanwhile
>Video games are a form of cultural expression with a profound impact on society and a strong transnational reach. IP reform is an important step to magnify this impact. Europe has a semi-harmonized copyright system which makes navigation unnecessarily complex. Video games were not taken into consideration during IP law’s initial development, and even recent reforms tend to overlook the specific nature of video games in relation to IP. Moreover, regulations in place for the protection of cultural heritage are not designed to protect interactive digital products, which raises threat to European digital heritage. Compared to countries such as the US, Europe is lagging behind on proper policies and education efforts on the patent regime: this needs to be addressed as high-quality IP and regulatory frameworks will end up attracting talents and,therefore, creating the largest impact on the future of video games globally. The recognition of video games as complex works by the European Court of Justice will have an important impact, as well as the implementation of the DSM Copyright Directive on a national level, and the harmonisation of the system across Europe.
t. a project aiming to assist the European Commission in developing a better understanding of the video game sector

>>714607160
IP doesnt equal possession of a good based on IP
I own a bike that was designed and put together by a company and its their IP, i dont fucking buy a license to ride a bike.

>>714590796
Dude just add LAN, release server tools and stop connecting to a master server for confirmation

>>714590438 (OP)
#stopbuyinggames

>>714599841
All it needs is a change in advertising law. If you're renting you can't call it selling, and you have to state how long you're renting for.

>>714607278
Would be a huge burden on smaller game studios and independents to be legally mandated to maintain that.

>>714607143
>ignoring that the service will crash under the load during the first weeks
The service itself is actually just going to be a forwarder to individual member states hosting their own services according to the same API contracts.

(The EU isn't piling all their data together in one spot. They're luckily smarter than creating a single point of failure like that, which would also be an enormously attractive target to state-sponsored hackers for disruption, as well as a goldmine for hackers looking for marketable stolen identities.)

>>714603509
Got a name of the server?
So I can block it.

every single argument against it is either, "but my corporate profits!", misrepresenting what it's about i.e. "they will have to keep the servers up forever" argument or fearmongering. you know why? because you literally argue with paid shills

>>714607553
the bike is a physical object
the design of the bike might be IP, but the bike itself exists
Video games have no physical existence - they are completely IP. So you buy a license to play it

>>714607425
>sell thing
>take away thing
>no refunds :)
yeah that's sort of a problem that needs solving you corporate cum-swilling faggot

>>714607548
Corposhills irrevocably BTFO by the fucking commission

>>714607358
>supervise your children so they don't watch furry porn online
>"omg why so helicopter!?"
nigger

>>714607587
Oh no, all those small indie developers making GaaS MMOs...

>>714607587
post 10 high profile indie live service games that would not work just as well with a basic peer to peer or basic server for at best a couple of hundred players

>>714590438 (OP)
>noooo, we can't just design our games with offline play in mind!
I fucking hate this revisionist bullshit because it actually works on retards. The self-imposed limitations of the industry are a relatively recent phenomenon.

>prohibitively expensive
weird how all those developers managed to do it for literal decades on a crumb of the average AAA budget

>>714607539
Just not the way you were thinking.

>>714607714
>so they don't watch furry porn online
is this a pointed remark aimed at pirate software?

>>714590796
nobody asked for open source, releasing compiled binaries is enough

>>714606750
so all the more reason for them to push more and more for online only distribution. like i said, this is amateurish, ill informed and will only result in a monkey's paw outcome. nothing has stopped them selling WOW, which is a limited service based subscription digitally or physically, nothing stops nintendo from selling mario 35, which is only available temporarily. they can literally do whatever they want because in principle there's nothing inherently wrong with them not supporting the game forever and they simply don't have the motivation to release a bunch of server backend shit out in to the wild. this is just not something to be solved with legislation, and it doesnt work as a widespread occupy wall street thing because people literally have no idea what the fuck they're talking about, and don't have any legitimate grievance outside of a decade old racing game that was supported pretty reasonably by the developer long after it became obsolete

i've solved it........

>>714607653
no, actual nig, I'm saying that giving away half the sales money at the end would bankrupt a company. they shouldn't be taking the fucking game away at all.
but partial refunds makes no sense

>>714607846
gnomed...

>>714607610
Its like people on /tv/ would argue that Netflix has a right to turn your tv off remotely. I dunno is it contrarians? fishing (yous) i have no fucking idea, publishers and devs fucking raped video games for years now and now people are defending them...

>>714607636
The bytes in my drive say otherwise.
They also say you should kill yourself.

>>714607820
That's exactly how I was thinking

>>714607823
owhoops, my bad

>>714607846
wait a minute, chat...

Oh I see it. You all thought I was crazy but I'm not!

>>714607636
>Video games have no physical existence
Neither do movies, yet I still can watch The Terminator 2 on my VHS I bought 20 years ago. Yet I can't play a singleplayer videogame I bought 5 years ago just because the publisher is being a dick about it.

>>714607894
>I dunno is it contrarians
literal pajeet shills anon, when you know what kind of shill tactics to expect it becomes pretty easy to spot

>>714590438 (OP)
What the fuck? We won though! We got the freakin number! HOW CAN THEY DO THIS ?????????!

>>714607894
>people
You mean americans and pajeets.

>>714607896
Do you know what a byte is? It has no physical existence either, it's information
Do you think it's an intelligent way to live life, being ignorant and telling anyone who corrects you to kill yourself?

>>714607594
Nice

>>714607636
Why am i holding in my hand physical copy of a video game that can work whenever I want, I OWN this video game im holding in my hand, the same way I own a bike im riding on.

Half of them love wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on dead on arrival games. If they are the brightest minds of the industry we are fine.

>>714608017
>It has no physical existence either, it's information
this nigga doesn't know about data density lmao

>>714608043
>I OWN this video game im holding in my hand
You own the CD
You can also buy a video game online in which case there's no CD but you "own" it just the same

>>714607636
>Video games have no physical existence - they are completely IP. So you buy a license to play it
The EU considers software sold under perpetual license as a good.
Regardless of the presence of a physical carrier.
In the absence of a carrier, the ephemeral bytes that constitute the software are themselves still considered a good.

>>714607636
This is such a retarded hill to die on what the fuck.

>>714607853
>makes no sense
that's called "punitive damages" and it's supposed to dissuade parties from breaking contracts.
being a scoundrel isn't a viable business model.

>>714608017
>It has no physical existence either
Oh, yeah, my computer is an imaginary object that exits only in the minds of innocent ferrets and inside your mumma's ass.

>>714607759
Fall Guys (before EGS acquired it) is the one example that jumped to my mind immediately. I'll admit I'd have to sit and think about it and research to come up with 10 of them although 10 is a completely arbitrary number to begin with that you just pulled out your ass.

>>714590438 (OP)
>rights holders
"Rights holders" resign their rights the moment they terminate service.

>>714608150
nobody's dying

How am i supposed to make money if i can't just lie to people and steal?
you're trying to put me out of business!

>>714608183
A video game is an arrangement of data
The memory on your computer can be arranged and rearranged at will, if you literally owned a physical configuration of data on your computer it would make no sense, because you can delete it or copy and paste it at will

>>714607836
>nothing has stopped them selling WOW, which is a limited service based subscription
Epic fail on your part using the wrong example.
WOW is a genuine subscription service which is renewed every month.
It is not a perpetual license - it's a montly renewed license.