We all know most of the arguments are retarded BUT A FEW ARE NOT.
Before the official deliberations commence, we need to look at the strongest arguments AGAINST Stop Killing Games.
>1. Reputational Harm: Allowing players to run private servers, with online interaction possibilities could result in players using those games in ways that don’t align with the games companies’ brand values, leading to a negative association with the brand, thereby harming its reputation.
What rights do game companies have to protect their brands?
>2. Competition from Community-Supported Versions: (2A) Such a requirement could lead to community-supported versions of games competing with official versions, potentially jeopardizing the financial investments of the video games companies. (2B) This would lead to confusion between trademarks, and the original trademark holder may be [mistakenly associated with] actions undertaken by a community supported version.
2A: "Just make better games." Will the EU agree with that? A big part of the industry relies on killing off older games to push players to the new ones. The EU told Apple to suck it up with USB-C, but this is more fundamental to how the industry at large functions.
2B: Goes back to #1: What rights do game companies have to protect their brands?
>3. Erosion of Intellectual Property Rights: Mandating games companies to keep their online games operable post-official support would undermine their rights and autonomy in deciding how their intellectual property is utilised.
Does the right of the consumer supersede the right of autonomy over your intellectual property?
This one is weaker. Some countries consider video games as goods, and if you purchase a good, the IP holder doesn't have the right to destroy your good. Still, mp games are different (see #1 and #2 which would never apply to traditional goods).
https://www.videogameseurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/VGE-Position-Discontinuation-of-Support-to-Online-Games-04072025.pdf
One more that didn't fit in the OP.
>4. The absence of effective moderation systems would create a less safe environment for consumers and may foster the proliferation of undesirable content while simultaneously frustrating the ability for EU Digital Services Coordinators to act against such content. This not only presents a safety risk for consumers but could also lead to brand reputation issues for the video games company.
My understanding is the EU cares more about mitigating potential harms that could be caused by speech than the principle of free speech, so this could be another problem.
>>714622846 (OP)>2. Competition from Community-Supported Versionsthis proves the game is still profitable why did they drop it?
>3. Erosion of Intellectual Property Rights: Mandating games companies to keep their online games operable post-official support would undermine their rights and autonomy in deciding how their intellectual property is utilised.You sell the product or you don't. The product is a video game.
>1. Reputational Harm: Allowing players tohas no relation to the company once they drop the game.
>>714622846 (OP)>>714622916>>1. Reputational Harm: Allowing players to run private servers, with online interaction possibilities could result in players using those games in ways that don’t align with the games companies’ brand values, leading to a negative association with the brand, thereby harming its reputation.
>>4. The absence of effective moderation systems would create a less safe environment for consumers and may foster the proliferation of undesirable content while simultaneously frustrating the ability for EU Digital Services Coordinators to act against such content. This not only presents a safety risk for consumers but could also lead to brand reputation issues for the video games company.
Just update the game to show a disclaimer whenever you join a private server
These really are non issues, if you can show a disclaimer for flashing lights, or voice chat in a mp game then this is a meaningless point
>Reputation harm.
Why doesn't Ford give a fuck if I put gay ass anime girls on the back of my car?
>>714623248They would stop you from doing that if they could.
>>714622846 (OP)>Before the official deliberations commence, we need to look at the strongest arguments AGAINST Stop Killing Games.lol. Why? You're not litigating this. It's entirely out of your control; the law isn't decided by arguing with disingenuous contrarians on 4chan.
Or do we have actual MEPs posting on /v/ now?
>we can't ban you if you run private servers
Super convincing argument
>>714622846 (OP)Why limit this to only video games?
I should be able to still activate my copies of Photoshop CS4 and Windows XP over the internet even though their activation servers are long dead by now.
I demand the right to re-download the music that I legally purchased on Groove Music before Microsoft so brazenly ripped that ability away from me.
I hear no arguments against SKG. I only hear squealing of desperate corposhills who are going to win in the end anyway, because we just can't have nice things, but need to cover for the scenario in which they somehow don't.
>>714622846 (OP)>>7146229161. Make a statement.
2. Make good games.
3. You get fucked.
4. Nobody gives a shit.
Is this really the best arguments against it?
>>714622846 (OP)>muh brandsolved by "THIS IS A PRIVATE SERVER. WE ARE NOT AFFILIATED IN ANY WAY WITH [CORPORATION NAME]" in big letters
>competitionmusic and film compete with old music and old films. they manage to do it just fine
>erosion of intellectual property rightsno such thing. diablo 2, starcraft, half-life, age of empires 2, terraria, palworld etc. all let you host your games, yet they haven't lost any "rights."
>muh moderationthat's a problem for the private server operators. why the fuck should a corpo care what happens on other people's computers?
it's all a load of bunk. ABSOLUTE CODSWALLOP
>>714624287>>muh moderationalso, corpos themselves disclaim any objections arising from online interactions with a disclaimer:
>ONLINE INTERACTIONS NOT RATED BY ESRBor similar
they're lying through their teeth
>>714622846 (OP)>>1. Reputational Harm: Allowing players to run private servers, with online interaction possibilities could result in players using those games in ways that don’t align with the games companies’ brand values, leading to a negative association with the brand, thereby harming its reputation.
This has never been a problem with any community server in the past. Examples: CS, WAR3, Conan Exiles, most WoW Private Servers like Nostalrius etc
>>2. Competition from Community-Supported Versions: (2A) Such a requirement could lead to community-supported versions of games competing with official versions, potentially jeopardizing the financial investments of the video games companies. (2B) This would lead to confusion between trademarks, and the original trademark holder may be [mistakenly associated with] actions undertaken by a community supported version.
2A: Goal is post end support. So this argument is invalid since community-supported versions wouldn't compete with the shut-down, offline & unsupported official version.
2B: A stupid argument when mods exist and don't cause confusion/problems over trademarks. And if community-server owners are stupid enough to make a for-profit server than it can be sued.
>>714624429>3. Erosion of Intellectual Property Rights: Mandating games companies to keep their online games operable post-official support would undermine their rights and autonomy in deciding how their intellectual property is utilised.Non-existing argument under fair-use rule. Also doesn't stops companies from making sequels, spin-offs, DLC & MTX, partnerships, etc.
>4. The absence of effective moderation systems would create a less safe environment for consumers and may foster the proliferation of undesirable content while simultaneously frustrating the ability for EU Digital Services Coordinators to act against such content. This not only presents a safety risk for consumers but could also lead to brand reputation issues for the video games company.Hold the owner of the community server accountable. Also refer to 1.
>>714624552>Hold the owner of the community server accountable.corpos shouldn't bring any cases against them. if the server operator breaks the law, then he'd get prosecuted by the state, etc.
>b-b-but what if peoples say nigger on private servers ?!
Nobody care, I fucking corpo speech about muh values and all
>>714623103>You sell the product or you don't. The product is a video game.In the case of singleplayer games this is true, but multiplayer games are fundamentally different since the experience depends not only on other players but also a server operator.
When the operator is the IP holder, the IP holder is in full control of their brand.
When the operator is a private entity, the holder has no* control over their brand on that private server.
>has no relation to the company once they drop the game.It does, at least a little, since it's still their games, their characters, their worlds.
>>714623167>>714624287>Just update the game to show a disclaimer whenever you join a private server>solved by "THIS IS A PRIVATE SERVER. WE ARE NOT AFFILIATED IN ANY WAY WITH [CORPORATION NAME]" in big lettersA simple, elegant solution. Private servers must make clear they are run with no affiliation with the IP holders.
>no such thing. diablo 2, starcraft, half-life, age of empires 2, terraria, palworld etc. all let you host your games, yet they haven't lost any "rights."The key difference is they did so voluntarily. Nobody forced them to do so.
Argument #3 is that forcing all developers to comply undermines their right of autonomy over their IP.
>>714623729>Why limit this to only video games?If this goes through, this could set legal precedent for broader software ownership in the future. I think it's easier to limit the scope first. Fewer opponents, as well.
>>714624705Like all other community-driven servers.
The simple, cost-efficient, solution exists, it just doesn't align with profiting off people using shitty underhanded practices and maintaining control over the online environment of their fanbase. Game companies are lucky it's just something trivial like SKG and not the status of license copy ownership, borderline gambling systems, predatory MTX, etc
I think a purchased game not being playable does a bit more harm to the brand value than any private server could.
Imagine if the people who sell boardgames suddenly could take it away from you and refused to let you play outside of their sanctioned board game zones because it might harm the board game brand, according to them.
Their logic is fucking retarded and they're hoping that some arbitrary notion that video games need to be treated as unique things will defeat the argument. I truly hope nobody with any sense falls for it.
>>714625203>Game companies are lucky it's just something trivial like SKG and not the status of license copy ownership, borderline gambling systems, predatory MTX, etcI think they're scared that this could open the floodgates for investigations into the even more scummy stuff they do.
If the EU starts poking around who knows what could happen.
>>714622846 (OP)Prefer a human speaking to me ty
>makes games easier to pirate
shieeet cuh that's all you had to say.
signed.
>>714625143>When the operator is a private entity, the holder has no* control over their brand on that private server.>It does, at least a little, since it's still their games, their characters, their worlds.>Argument #3 is that forcing all developers to comply undermines their right of autonomy over their IP.Fair Use.
Or if companies are so adamant about protecting their IP & brand image, than they should start cracking down on fanarts, youtube videos & twitch streamers directly profiting off their IP and actually damaging said IP, but suddenly they don't care about that argument :)
>>714624429>This has never been a problem with any community server in the past. This has never been a problem with any community server in the past. Examples: CS, WAR3, Conan Exiles, most WoW Private Servers like Nostalrius etcI think those precedents are valuable but even they're raised I wonder if the EU is going to say "Well, logically harm still COULD occur in the future."
>2A: Goal is post end support. So this argument is invalid since community-supported versions wouldn't compete with the shut-down, offline & unsupported official version. Yeah, their wording is weird but I think they meant private servers for their old games would hurt sales for their new games.
>2B: A stupid argument when mods exist and don't cause confusion/problems over trademarks. And if community-server owners are stupid enough to make a for-profit server than it can be sued.I don't think mods are an apt comparison since mods are by definitions modifications of the game. With private servers it could be less clear, but like others have mentioned that could be easily solved by clear disclosure of nonaffiliation.
>Hold the owner of the community server accountable.This is where it could get murky when drafting official legislation.
Can rights holders only order takedowns for private servers breaking the law? What about servers that harm their brand?
>>714625718>>Argument #3 is that forcing all developers to comply undermines their right of autonomy over their IP.>Or if companies are so adamant about protecting their IP & brand image, than they should start cracking down on fanarts, youtube videos & twitch streamers directly profiting off their IP and actually damaging said IP, but suddenly they don't care about that argument :)Autonomy over your IP doesn't mean you prohibit all usage, it means you have the freedom to allow or prohibit usage as you see fit. I think they all know by now streamers and youtubers benefit their games.
>>714625143>forcing all developers to comply undermines their right of autonomy over their IP.yaking the carpet from out under me undermines my rights as a consumer. tough luck for them. they don't get to fuck me like some random bitch behind the dumpsters
6126
md5: 38ba18befba13cf970157174df18518b
🔍
>>714626303>I wonder if the EU is going to say "Well, logically harm still COULD occur in the future."Don't see why they would, they hold individuals above brands. There are some control freaks that want to end anonymity online but that's unrelated.
>they meant private servers for their old games would hurt sales for their new gamesClassic wow wasn't a thing until Private server were big and popular like Nostalrius. Classic Wow's launch smashed that argument away.
>This is where it could get murky when drafting official legislation.Can rights holders only order takedowns for private servers breaking the law? What about servers that harm their brand?
Same way they deal with other media that harms their brand. Otherwise that enters into Fair Use domain.
>Autonomy over your IP doesn't mean you prohibit all usage, it means you have the freedom to allow or prohibit usage as you see fit. I think they all know by now streamers and youtubers benefit their games.Then Fair Use it is. Also pretty sure community-driven servers have great marketing potential with youtube & streamers.
>>714626943>Can rights holders only order takedowns for private servers breaking the law?what the fuck are you suggesting? if they break the law, they get prosecuted
you don't send takedowns to people because they do stuff you're critical of. DMCA takedowns are for copyright infringement only
>>714628114Misquoted evidently if you look at what was quoted, forgot the > at the start.
DUwNKo4
md5: f89bdf3826e9ed1d0fb58ebbb09da164
🔍
I have a deal for you all.
Legislation passes that requires with always-online multiplayer games with significant single-player elements to have an offline mode after shutdown.
This would save always-online games with singleplayer modes like The Crew was, or gacha games such as Genshin Impact, ZZZ, etc.
BUT
This does not include games which are structured exclusively to play multiplayer, such as MOBAs, competitive shooters, or MMOs. Basically any game that would REQUIRE a Private Server in order to function properly.
Do you take the deal?
>>714628114DMCA takedowns don't even apply in europe. some sites comply out of courtesy simply to avoid getting pestered by copyright bots and corpos
>>714629132if things worked like you're proposing then games like diablo II and terraria would get no online
>>714622846 (OP)You only need one argument. Live service will no longer be a genre to play in Europoor.
Like it or not, Thor was right on the money in some senses and people were unwilling to hear him out whatsoever to their own detriment. He was way off base in other ways, but that doesn't stop him from being correct where he had reasonable concerns. Instead of listening, they made fun of me by baselessly claiming I raped those ferrets.
>>714629493Unrealistic post, Thor would never say he was 'off base' in anything.
>>714623248Ford doesn't but Ferrari does.
>>714622846 (OP)those are retarded. the vast majority of people will always want to have the current thing.
especially in gaming where there is constant technological progress the likelihood of an old game overshadowing a new one is super low.
the only one that comes to mind is AoE2.
>>714630279and if the old game in fact was more popular they wouldn't need to drop it in the first place.
that argument just makes no sense.
>>714622846 (OP)None of this means anything when dedicated servers were a thing for a better part of a decade before developers removed that option from games.
file
md5: e779ab1fd147f5700e2e82d7e72e3eec
🔍
>>714630569This, it is pretty simple:
>Don't want to support your game anymore? Then release a dedicated server tool for the community.
>>714622846 (OP)I am sick to death of corporations waving around "brand protection" as a license for the most disgusting and petty behavior possible and I am in favor of anything that will curtail what they can do in the name of such. VISA and Mastercard are the most standout arguments for limiting what actions should be able to be taken in the name of "brand protection". Does ANYONE even view them as a "brand" rather than the box they check when they can't fork over cash?
>>714622846 (OP)>>714622916sounds like a lot of excuses not to git gud
>>714630825They just wank off over the influence and control they have.
Same motives that compels companies to post shit like
>>714622846 (OP)For example, Blizzard made bank with community-driven servers during Warcraft3, Starcraft or D2. Now they want to maintain their influence and control over said community with half-assed excuses for always online D3 or D4, or their stance on hosting vanilla WoW & Xpac servers before Nostalrius.
this is a regulatory framework commissioned by the EU for video games btw, it includes trying to figure out IP law where video games are specified and treating them as cultural products to be preserved, sounds like an uh-oh if i were a publisher
>>714622846 (OP)Literally corporate lobbyists
>>714630825SHUT UP GOY, OUR BRAND IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN YOUR RIGHTS. YOU'RE JUST SOME POOR 3RD WORLDER. WHO CARES ABOUT YOU FUCKING FREEDOM-HATING GOY
don't forget to buy our latest lootbxoes, now 0.25% off after buying at least 12!
Reminder, those threads are not your usual (you) farm. Those are made by discord furfags
Those are the only minority allowed to do pedo/zoosadism stuff on that platform due to majority of discord mod team being furfag zoosadist themselves(no, fucking your dog is not love, yet alone ferret). This time, we have addition of your typical e-celeb attention whore and braindead fucks who cannot formulate their own opinion and need validation and opinion from e-whore. tl:dr they cannot tell fi water is wet if guru doesn't tell them what to think
Considering SKG development heavily shits on not-mentioned ferret fucker who actively tried to sabotage it, it's obvious that as narcisstic faggot he is, he wont let those 1mln+ signatures slip
Right now, his cultists are spamming /v/ trying to derail the discussion, with best example being making up arguments and answering them. SKG initiative have whole FAQ page and you're free to read it and formulate your own opinion. You can like or dislike the initiative, just don't be a cultist retard
sources:
>pic related spamming multiple threads
>ferretfucker propably exposing himself
https://arch.b4k.dev/v/thread/714384123/#714386802
>additional misinfo threads
https://arch.b4k.dev/v/thread/714488065/
https://arch.b4k.dev/v/thread/714467783/
https://arch.b4k.dev/v/thread/714482861/
https://arch.b4k.dev/v/thread/714478771/#714478823
>examle of one of confirmed discord cultists forcing meme
https://arch.b4k.dev/v/search/image/9Tw39ZBzrFlghImObbG3vQ/
Remember, those threads are not made as counter-argument, or just shitpost. These are made by literal zoosadist angry that their ferret raping guru got insulted and exposed. History proved that vast majority of furfagots are literal sexual predators ranging from other innocent people, to minors and animals, with several disgusting fetish. Smelly fursuit is just a mild one. They will attack the initiative even if overall result also benefits them, but being autodestructive is part of faggotry
>>714622846 (OP)>why providing support DO notThey use chatgpt for this shit?
>>714622846 (OP)Its crazy how you can make a coherent argument against SKG in like 1-2 short sentences, but the longer you speak the less sense you make and more you sound like a retard corpo shill
>>714622846 (OP)who cares about what an industry lobby group has to say? the last thing they think about is the rights of players and users
>>714622846 (OP)none of these are my problem.
>>714622846 (OP)Are we sure it's a good idea to argue our strategy publicly
>>714622846 (OP)>1. Reputational Harm: Allowing players to run private servers, with online interaction possibilities could result in players using those games in ways that don’t align with the games companies’ brand valuesThats like saying a book author is responsible if a criminal has his book on his shelf. Thats retarded.
>Such a requirement could lead to community-supported versions of games competing with official versions, potentially jeopardizing the financial investments of the video games companies.The requirement explicitly only regards abandoned games, not games supported by devs. Retarded argument.
>3. Erosion of Intellectual Property Rights: Mandating games companies to keep their online games operable post-official support would undermine their rights and autonomy in deciding how their intellectual property is utilised.People owning books in their bookshelves does not erode the authors IP rights. Giga-retarded argument.
>>714633648>yes goy stop discussing, don't say anythingah I'm sure it will all work if everyone just shuts up and lets the game publisher lobby group have its way
>>714633142>online gamesthis was supposed to be about singleplayer games, how did you let this creep into being about MMOs
>>714622846 (OP)SKG will never pass in its current state because of the extra burden it will place on the indie developer community.
>Many marginalized developers—whether part of the LGBTQ+ community or working in underrepresented racial or ethnic groups—operate in environments already strained by limited resources, smaller teams, and systemic barriers to funding.>“If these proposals become law without nuance,” said one Zurich-based queer indie dev who wished to remain anonymous, “we could be forced to release server code or build fallback systems we don’t have the budget for. Larger studios might weather that. We can’t.”
>>714633142>who cares about what an industry lobby group has to say?The EU will hear both sides. 1,000,000 signatures doesn't mean it's over.
>the last thing they think about is the rights of players and usersAnd the last thing players and users think about is the rights of the big companies. They do a lot of anti-consumer shit but they still have rights too.
In this specific scenario, why ought this group's rights supersede the other's?
The EU will consider both sides, that's why the discussion matters.
>>714633876Oh no not the type of developers who experiment with new customer misleading ideas!
>>714634237>And the last thing players and users think about is the rights of the big companies.EU is openly hostile against big tech so good luck with that.
Louis Rossmann was right. You do 90% of the work and make it easy, in Ross's case flat out making an adhd version of his breakdow, and it's not enough. People won't even write their own name just to keep things they own. And when they do, 10% won't even spell it properly.
>>714622846 (OP)brand values lmao. I think you're going to need to go the standalone route.
>>714634304The examples from the EU I know are the cookies thing and Apple capitulating with USB-C, so those two were good for consumers. I don't know if they've made anti-consumer rulings, though.
>>714634237>why ought this group's rights supersede the other's?Because theyre the enemy who have been poisoning and releasing worse and worse games with no end in sight, it's that simple
>>714622846 (OP)Like it or not, drama is the only reason this passed. SKG seems to have won, but people need to wise up and realize the next SKG probably won't have the perfect storm come and save it at the last minute.
No one gives a fuck about corpos rippi g people off because corpos are all faceless. Where as Figtree or whatever the fuck PS called his fursona had, in the year since, utterly blown through his rep. The fact he was almost certainly reading from a script when he shat on SKG and had been labeled an industry plant for a months just sold it. It was the perfect storm. The fact it took this for SKG to succeed is embarassing. It's an indictment on the human condition. SKG won due to purely luck. If something like this happens 10 times, 9 out of those 10 it will fail because the perfect storm of emotional manipulation needed to galvanize people into looking out for their own rational self-interest won't happen.
>>714633876indies don't launch live service games because of the additional maintenance and resource burden, you absolute retard. not to mention the increased liability since you're storing player data on your servers
>>714622846 (OP)>1. Reputational Harm: Allowing players to run private servers, with online interaction possibilities could result in players using those games in ways that don’t align with the games companies’ brand values, leading to a negative association with the brand, thereby harming its reputation."Online content not rated" has existed forever.
>2. Competition from Community-Supported Versions: (2A) Such a requirement could lead to community-supported versions of games competing with official versions, potentially jeopardizing the financial investments of the video games companies. (2B) This would lead to confusion between trademarks, and the original trademark holder may be [mistakenly associated with] actions undertaken by a community supported version.Make the better game. Youre a billion dollar company, surely you can make the better game right? You arent skilless skinner box crafting degenerates are you?
>3. Erosion of Intellectual Property Rights: Mandating games companies to keep their online games operable post-official support would undermine their rights and autonomy in deciding how their intellectual property is utilised.Not an argument.
>>714634338If big youtubers had picked it up day 1 and made multiple videos about it, then it would have passed far sooner. A huge issue was that not many people even knew it was happening+most of the people spreading the news were English only.
>>714634237>In this specific scenario, why ought this group's rights supersede the other's?Because they're infringing on MY RIGHTS by taking away a game I bought. meanwhile I'm not infringing on any of theirs.
you don't sell people cars that stop rolling when some remote server shuts down
>>714634752>Because they're infringing on MY RIGHTS by taking away a game I bought.Yeah. Arguably that's true.
The muh license argument is tenuous since some European countries consider games goods, goods are subject to consumer protection laws, and EULAs cannot override national laws.
>meanwhile I'm not infringing on any of theirs.Well, they disagree. They argued as much in #3.
>3. Mandating games companies to keep their online games operable post-official support would undermine their rights and autonomy in deciding how their intellectual property is utilised.
ok, covered:
>completly concerned response from AAA corpo alliance
>constant derail and spam on /v/ from organized groups
>furfaggot tryong to steal glory after he nearly killed off the initiative
>another example of concerned AAA devs and how impossible(possible) solution is
what I miss
>discordtrannies and furfag seething screencaps, while trying to derail the initiative
>some proof from 2 days ago with CP spam to ge threads talking about SKG deleted
>>714635048>>3. Mandating games companies to keep their online games operable post-official support
no one is saying they have to host servers forevermore. I want games to work like Terraria, Diablo II, Age of Empires II, Half Life, Unreal Tournament, Warcraft III, etc. where you can just launch them whenever and play. no corporations needed.
And MMOs have private servers where you just pick your favorite, register, and play. No official server needed
you're a fucking cunt and should kill yourself
>>714635048>would undermine their rights and autonomy in deciding how their intellectual property is utilised.Boo-fucking-hoo. Consumer rights>Jew rights.
>>714633876I don't wanna hear anyone talk to me about "marginalized developers" until they acknowledge the shit Japanese otaku moege devs are forced to go through when they try to release games now.
>>714622846 (OP)Apply literally every argument to the automotive industry. Cars up to 40 years old are common on the road. Should manufacturers have the right to crush your vehicle after 5 years so they don't have to compete with it?
Fuck off
>>714635196>no one is saying they have to host servers forevermore.Yeah, you're right. That's a retard-tier argument that for some reason some retards are genuinely still repeating, but that's not what the VGE were referring to here.
They spoke of "[keeping] their games operable," meaning providing some means for players to operate online games after support ends, like the games you listed.
>I want games to work like Terraria, Diablo II, Age of Empires II, Half Life, Unreal Tournament, Warcraft III, etc. where you can just launch them whenever and play. no corporations needed.Of course, most players do. I do too.
The difference is that those games chose to give players that option.
The VGE argue that forcing studios by law to give that to players would infringe upon their rights of autonomy over their IP.
>>714623418>lol. Why? You're not litigating this. It's entirely out of your control; the law isn't decided by arguing with disingenuous contrarians on 4chan.It's not?
But why did I spend all my youth arguing why Nintendo is shit on /v/ then?
>>714635635Old vehicles are horrifically unsafe and inefficient. This is one of the laws I honestly think should be passed.
>>714635686their "rights autonomy over their IP" doesn't include the ability to steal from players. tough luck
>>714622846 (OP)Why not just buy from GOG?
>>714635686>autonomyHow many of their EULAs have stipulations that require users to relinquish the autonomy of any user-generated content they post on the service?
If they can't force these companies to provide some sort of reasonable end of life support for these products then I am fine with an alternative of them having to display front and centre on these games they have a fixed lifespan with specific dates they have to uphold which needs to be measured in years at a minimum. And where they cannot or will not give definitive dates they must still have this notice and warning that the game can be killed at anytime. This would be required for all retail games that rely upon an external server for functionality. The only way around needing to do this is if the game is F2P, at which point it carries an implicit understanding that it can be killed at anytime. Lets make a special icon for this notice as well, ideally a gold star.
>>714635905GOG's library is not remotely comparable to Steam's and most publishers have limited or no support for it.
>>714636051Or just make it easier and ban them the ability to use the word "purchase" or "buy" anywhere in their product. Only "lease" and "rent" are allowed.
>>714635635>Apply literally every argument to the automotive industry.A lot of multiplayer online-only games are run as services. Buying a car is not analogous to using a service.
>>714636130Yeah that works too. But the lease/rent needs to be denoted with a further explanation about they can yank the ability to play at any given time without recourse.
>>714622846 (OP)>Erosion of intellectual property rightsIP holders are free to allow or deny access to any individual they want. Denying access to everyone in one fell swoop isn't about choosing who you want to access your game because nobody is being chosen to deny
>>714636228All games are services according to the industry. Buying a car is analogous to buying a single player game and your "rights" allow those single player games to be destroyed by the manufacturer
>>714633876False argument, independents do not make live services or games requiring a constant connection, why? Because they are independent and maintaining servers is expensive.
>>714622846 (OP)>we need to look at the strongest arguments AGAINST Stop Killing Games.none of the 4 you listed are strong arguments at all.
1, 3, and 4 are all things that could be said about other already existing games that already allow community run servers, either for currently still alive games and for ones where official support ended long ago.
In short, they're all non-arguments, or ones where already existing scenarios already provide a robust counter-argument.
2 is literally a made up point
>Such a requirement could lead to community-supported versions of games competing with official versionsSKG LITERALLY specifies that what they demand would only affect a game AFTER the official support has ended, so community supported versions would NOT EXISTS as long as the official supported versions are still running.
So again, these "strong" arguments aren't strong at all and once again rely either on arguing doing this would be bad for the companies despite already existing cases demonstrating this isn't true(1,3, and 4), or rely on having LITERALLY not read the SKG points, since multiple of those points reiterate multuple times that these counter measures would only need to be applied after end of service(2)
>>714634428that and the obligation for Nintendo to replace the JoyCons cause of drift
>>714622846 (OP)Counterpoint:
You have whatever rights the government says you do. If they want to take complete ownership of your IP for themselves you have no recourse but to get the fuck out
>>714622846 (OP)>What rights do game companies have to protect their brands?Imagine fans got a hold of Concord and turned it around. There would be a court case where the dev did everything they could to torpedo their brand and the fans would lose for trying to improve the brand.
These kind of wacky outcomes means the issue isn't the issue. This isn't about a company protecting their reputation. They're fine with tanking their reputation.
>>714636738>Imagine fans got a hold of Concord and turned it around. There would be a court case where the dev did everything they could to torpedo their brand and the fans would lose for trying to improve the brand.Theres not going to be any court cases. In that scenario publishers push a Cease and Desist order, the fans stop doing what they're doing and Concord remains safely dead. Already a thing that happened with Classic WoW. When big boy Acti-Blizzard told the fans to stop running their private server, they complied because they didn't have any choice.
>>714622846 (OP)>picSKG literally never says a company has to continue server support indefinitely. They didn't even read the initiative to know what it says so how can they possibly argue against it? If the commission has any brains they'd disregard this entire argument.
>>714622846 (OP)>>714623167Okay here's my counter argument:
Fuck you, if it were up to me you would be sued and fined for every single copy of a product you stole from customer under the guise that a piece of paper lets you steal from people at-will.
You have had the means to fix this for years just like we've had the means to fix you for years. You've just never been held to count to fixing it so you're making it seem like the end of the world.
If it bothers you so much, you can always roll up shop and sell someplace like China full-time where your product will be stolen by the CCP and you'll be disappeared if any of your imagery gets associated with great pooh-bear.
>>714636093Not an argument. If devs want to sell on steam and not GOG, it's up to them. If you like steam's selection over GOG's you're not entitled to them being sold in the way you want.
>>714622846 (OP)Donald Trump will kill this movement dead.
The EU shouldn't be messing with American companies if they don't want tariffs to increase.
>>714625143>Argument #3 is that forcing all developers to comply undermines their right of autonomy over their IP.And the question the EU ask is if that right outweighs the right of the consumer to not being ripped off.
If I buy a book, are the rights holders losing out because they cannot take that book from me?
If publishing houses were creating books on paper that would disintegrate after a couple of years, for the sake of controlling their IP, would it be allowed?
>>714637693The EU really couldn't give less of a shit. Trump's posturing is more of an annoyance than anything else. Although they don't want to, the EU will be more than willing to strengthen ties with China and Asia until the Republicans are booted.
>>714622846 (OP)1 and 2 and 3 are all explicitly refuted by history. The 90s and early 00s saw the rise of the heaviest hitter IPs, the leading engines of the industry thanks to being open to everyone to mess around with the engine and its games, as well as some of the more recent games like Minecraft rose astronomically by being open to players to use the game and modify it as they saw fit. Series like Elder Scrolls thrive exclusively because mods carry them for decades. The more freedom players have, the more money publishers make just from selling the product while also doing far less work.
Reputation? Fuck off, motherfuckers are far less reputable the more locked down they got.
Competition? Open moddable games that are guaranteed to never be taken from the user are free fucking advertising for YOUR game.
Fuck off with "IP rights." Make another fucking game, your IP rights are secure.
>>7146229164 is a fucking joke because shit is worse than it used to be. Community run servers had admins for each server, policing it as they saw fit, it kept the shit people out and garnered actual communities within the game despite minimal tools. Bad servers/admins naturally had people avoid it and move to the good servers. Nowadays, cheaters and bad dudes get to run rampant because the system doesn't do shit to stop them and nobody has a direct means to stop the bad actors.
>>714636287SHUT UP GOY I HAVE THE POWER TO TAKE AWAY YOUR GAMES. IT'S HOW COPYRIGHT WORKS. FUCK YOU AND YOUR RIGHTS
btw please don't forget to buy our newest DLC
>>714636972yea it's unlikely any private server dispute would escalate beyond c&ds.
>>714622846 (OP)>ESL shit in the literal titlethey're not sending their best
>>714622846 (OP)>but we want to reserve the right to pull the game out from under your feet whenever we wantFully aware that's why i signed the petition to take that right away from you. Fuck you faggots
Anything that causes this gay ass industry to crash is good in my book.
file
md5: 1992f16d492a7220bb64b8278fa6688f
🔍
>>714622846 (OP)>What rights do game companies have to protect their brands?picrel is what they typically use to cover their ass.
Also fuckem who cares its a corporation AND they're doing this after throwing the game in the trash so its not really their problem anymore. Ford isn't responsible for you braining yourself on a focus you found in a scrapyard, that's all on you big dog
>Still, mp games are different (see #1 and #2 which would never apply to traditional goods)this is literally half the point of the initiative you retard, to concretely set out if they're products (in which case remotely removing access is a crime) or a service (in which case the laws and protections are different and the companies will need to start properly providing information about terms and lifespan in advance of purchase)
>>714622846 (OP)>good arguments>look inside>terrible arguments by a literal lobby with a vested interest in preventing the initiative from succeeding
>>714643485Narcissistic control freaks cannot stand taking an L after decades of shoving rugpull slop in front of everyone.
>>714642826>only corporations make gamesyou know corporations hire artists right? so artists can't make the art they wanna make now because why exactly? why should they care if you want to take their work and turn it in to a p2p darkrp server, why can't they be free to sell you a limited piece of software that doesn't last forever, you agreed to buy it under those terms
>>714646000They'll have to agree to new terms soon.
>>714646000Except you didn't. You agreed to buy the game because you wanted to play it. When you pay one time for a licensed copy of media, you get to keep it effectively forever. Or at least until the hardware you use to enjoy it breaks down.
So artists are 100% allowed to make something that won't last forever. Provided that they tell all their buyers up front EXACTLY when their term of service will end. Because that's how services work.
>>714646000>you agreed to buy it under those termsThat is a good chunk of the issue, because no people didn't. It is one argument to say that an inherently online MP game has a set lifespan and there is some implicit understand that can potentially be the case. But there should be zero reason any single player component of the game should stop working after a certain time just because the company decides to shut it down. At the very least this potential needs to be in big bold writing front and centre when making a retail purchase along with a set minimum lifespan for the content.
>>714646307>So artists are 100% allowed to make something that won't last forever. Provided that they tell all their buyers up front EXACTLY when their term of service will end. Because that's how services work.except that's literally just how games are sold today, you want to change that
>>714646431>there is some implicit understand that can potentially be the caseit's literally explicit. were you sold the game with any kind of guarantee as to an end of service? no. do the terms grant you an explicit end to the service? no
you bought and paid for the game knowing all this, it's just indian giving at this point
Regardless of any legislation etc that might result of this Valve could do the funniest thing and make a decision themselves to change any instance where a game is predicated on external server reliance just to function have all purchase text changed to Lease/Rent with extra confirmation required for finalising the transaction. Arguably it helps cover themselves as well for facilitating these corporations pulling this shit if nothing else is going to be done about it. They could add a big banner to any of the store pages warning of the external server reliance just to play etc as well.
>>714622846 (OP)I think the first 3 aren't very good arguments when you consider books.
1. A determined enough person or group of people can also publish their own copy of a book that can pass as an authentic copy of it but with all or some of the contents changed in an attempt to ruin the brand of the publisher and the writer.
2. A determined enough person or group or people can also publish their own copies of a book but that would hardly be a threat against the publisher publishing legitimate copies
3. It's absurd to expect a publisher to have to maintain and keep in good condition all copies of a book they put out in circulation in order so owners can keep enjoying their copies and read them forever.
Just my 2 cents.
Every time I look into the skg thing I realize I'm for it and yet I can't interact with anybody in it because everybody is either insufferably retarded or so antagonistic towards anybody or anything that a civil conversation can't even be remotely had. Everybody is just flinging shit at each other.
>>714646598Guess what has already been legally proven to not trump consumer protection laws and ultimately not be worth much, EULAs. So very simply either they add a massive warning label to these retail purchase games that your game can effectively be stolen at the whim of the publisher/developer, or they are required to give reasonable end of life support else suffer full value refunds if they render the game unplayable.
>>714646773>have all purchase text changed to Lease/Rent with extra confirmation required for finalising the transactionas funny as it would be, it wouldn't fix the game of games being killed, which is the real issue at hand
>>714622846 (OP)>What rights do game companies have to protect their brands?The same as people do
>>714622846 (OP)>Reputational harm
>>714622846 (OP)The best reason of all is that all this has only ever been about the shittiest games.
>>714622846 (OP)>1. Reputational Harm: Allowing players to run private servers, with online interaction possibilities could result in players using those games in ways that don’t align with the games companies’ brand values, leading to a negative association with the brand, thereby harming its reputation.this is not a real thing
>2. Competition from Community-Supported Versions: (2A) Such a requirement could lead to community-supported versions of games competing with official versions, potentially jeopardizing the financial investments of the video games companies. then you should provide better service
if some free fan server is better than the official ones then lol lmao
this also proves that running the servers is extremely cheap and they have no reason to shut them down
self owning retards
>3. Erosion of Intellectual Property Rights: Mandating games companies to keep their online games operable post-official support would undermine their rights and autonomy in deciding how their intellectual property is utilised.this is not a real thing either
these guys are pathetic and retarded and should kys
>>714647197I know it doesn't fix the exact problem, but it outlines clearly the potential for it to happen which should hurt the bottom line of the games anyway unless the corporations fix it. Ultimately if people still throw money at said games after it is made explicitly clear the game is always living on borrowed time then there is no helping these people. If the corporations cannot be forced to stop doing this shit entirely then making them wear a gold star so people know to avoid the game is the next best thing.
>>714622846 (OP)>>1. Reputational Harm: Allowing players to run private servers, with online interaction possibilities could result in players using those games in ways that don’t align with the games companies’ brand values, leading to a negative association with the brand, thereby harming its reputation.
>What rights do game companies have to protect their brands?This is a good point though.
>some terrorists migrate to the dead game servers devs are forced to let people run by EU legislations and use them to plot an attack >there's literally no way to prevent this without also forcing the devs to hire a moderation team and further work on the game
>>714647418It is just funny that they argue they want to avoid potential reputational harm from letting people run private servers, whilst acting like killing the game outright isn't doing reputational harm already.
>>714647418To play devil's advocate, how is it not a real thing?
>>714646920>determined enoughgames are different though since you don't have to be determined, it's the same game, if devs provide official binaries for private servers the barrier to producing an "authentic copy" is way lower than for books
>>714622846 (OP)The initiative is bullshit. Companies will throw their hands up and refuse to release certain types of games because of this shit. The only people who support it are retarded faggots.
>>714647481>This is a good point though.It literally isn't since this is no different from a forum being hosted by someone and the same thing happening. It is covered by whatever laws the country hosting the server has. Any 'reputational' harm resulting from such a situation would be the result of MSM misrepresenting the whole thing.
>>714633876name a single indie live service game
>>714647665>refuse to release certain types of games because of this shit.Implying no more live service games is a bad thing.
>>714647665>Companies will throw their hands up and refuse to release certain types of games because of this shit.You say that like that is somehow a bad thing.
unironic question, if the initiative does go through, and parlament has to pay attention to it, what happens? is it going to be an issue of big corpo lobbyist using corporate jargon to confuse the politicians while ross is right there just by himself? how does the thing actually works?
(im not an eu citizen)
>>714647704What about legal speech/behaviour/content inside the private server that the IP holders don't want associated with their brands?
>>714647750>>714647739>if i don't like it, you can't have it eitherIf you don't like online games, don't play them
>>714647554if it was a real thing the sonic franchise would have been buried years ago
>>714647803Most people who are really deep into this group either haven't thought that far or have no idea what the fuck happens next. Before anybody has a meltdown I like SKG and it's message but hate the people it's attracted and repulsed
>>714647807Irrelevant. They are not managing the server so it has nothing to do with them. Someone could shoot up a school wearing a full Ronald McDonald costume but it doesn't mean McDonalds was responsible or under some self imposed requirement to make sure such a thing didn't happen. Any and all fallout of such an event hurting the corporation would be the result of the situation being misrepresented by the press. If you want further legal coverage for this bullshit then just make it a requirement that any and all private servers must have Unofficial plastered on it.
>>714647803The people organizing Stop Killing Games have no tangible goals except a vague notion of forcing companies to make an "end of life plan" for live service games, without much detail about what that means.
gay hat
md5: 45205576594fc2faa23b9df0fc0fdd2f
🔍
>>714622846 (OP)the only argument that matters, and the one that wins in the end is "caveat emptor" don't buy shit that won't work
>>714647803There will be an extensive investigation period. Independent reports, committee members having a handful of meetings, hearing from SKG reps, corporate interests, and various experts and lawyers and shit... you know, that kind of thing. Most of that will apparently happen over a 6 month-ish period. With any actual laws or regulations taking additional time to hammer out after that, maybe up to a couple of years at most.
When all is said and done, we'll have a definitive answer to the question of "Do EU citizens have personal property rights when it comes to video games?"
>>714647803In theory the issue gets brought before a relevant EU committee to discuss validity. If determined to be valid it would then be moved further along to figure out regulations etc. Which would then later be voted on or just implemented with relevant companies needing to comply with the regulations or either stop selling in the EU or face financial penalties for infractions.
>>714647807It's abandonware at that point.
Game isn't associated with them in any way.
They could simply remove all their TM and C names etc from that product to disconnect themselves from it.
>>714648096That's a big reason why I don't like modern activism/political groups. The cause may be just but jesus christ the people trying to do good are fucking retarded.
>>714648191EU citizens have no "rights" lmao, those only exist in the USA.
>>714648096All they have to do is to get the EC's attention to the topic and let the EC and EP do the rest.
>>714648096it's called making an offline mode to play the game when official servers/support is ended by the companies and capcom literally proved the idea works when they released Megaman X Dive 2 years ago..
>>714648096There was a character limit on the Initiative description, motherfucker. And you know damn well that will mean something different for literally every game ever made. Hence the intentional use of language like "reasonably functional."
If you want my take on shit, it should tend to mean one of two things: 1) Make an offline mode, or 2) Give users the .exe files to run their own servers. Simple as.
>>714648305>those only exist in the USA.
>>714647803FROM THE OFFICIAL ECI SITE:
https://citizens-initiative.europa.eu/how-it-works_en
(we're basically at step 4)
>STEP 4: Get statements of support verified>If you manage to collect enough signatures within the 12-month timeframe, group them by nationality and send them for verification to the responsible authorities in each EU country.>STEP 5: Submit your initiative>Once you’ve received the last certificate from the national authorities, you have 3 months to submit your initiative to the Commission – together with the information on the support and funding you’ve received for the initiative.>STEP 6: Get an answer>Once you’ve submitted your initiative, the examination of your initiative starts:>Within 1 month>You will meet with representatives of the Commission so you can explain the issues raised in your initiative in detail. >Within 3 months>You will have the opportunity to present your initiative at a public hearing at the European Parliament. Parliament may also hold a debate in a full (plenary) session, which could lead to it adopting a resolution related to your issue. >Within 6 months>The Commission will spell out what action (if any) it will propose in response to your initiative, and its reasons for taking (or not taking) action. This response will be in the form of a communication formally adopted by the College of Commissioners and published in all official EU languages. You will meet with the representatives of the Commission who will explain in more detail its decision regarding your initiative.>Legislation>If the Commission considers legislation as an appropriate response to your initiative, it will start preparing a formal proposal. This can require preparatory steps like public consultations, impact assessments, etc. Once adopted by the Commission, the proposal is submitted to the European Parliament and the Council (or in some cases, only to the Council), which will need to adopt it for it to become law.
>>714648256Every evil person thinks he's trying to do good. That's the entire problem with the world.
>>714648361The rest of what? These people don't even know what they want. How will politicians implement it? And why would you trust a bunch of retarded social climbers we call politicians to properly implement something like this when it wasn't even conceived with a coherent objective?
>>714648417>>714648403"making an offline mode" isn't so simple for a lot of games, and it severely limits the creative potential that new devs can have. It's a ridiculous requirement, and i can't believe you faggots are so hung up on getting even more laws passed that restrict creativity and freedom of expression. You're faggots. Not to mention, where are all these games that are supposedly being killed? Name 10.
>>714624775Enjoy your gore and CP, dude
>>714648619>nooo not our creative always online mtx slop!die
>>714622846 (OP)>muh moderation! think of the children!this argument quickly falls apart when you bring up
1. how publishers themselves get rid of all responsibility if they call you a faggot in a multiplayer lobby with a big "online interactions not rated by ESRB" sticker on the box
2. the absolute state of Roblox's official servers and the rampant grooming/pedophilia cases over there
>>714648619I know this is bait but I can only really think of the crew
>>714648619I agree. For those where that is not feasible, they should RELEASE THE DAMN SERVER BINARIES. Goddamn how hard is that?
>>714633876why do you niggers always spam every thread with the same nonsense over and over?
>>714648619you're a pedophile pajeet
>>714648674No, you die, motherfucker. I'm not defending corporate slop like ubishit. I care about games in general, and the ideal of the freedom of creativity.
>>714648776Not an argument
>>714622846 (OP)If it will kill games as a service shit, it's good. All I need to know. Anything else is worthwhile collateral damage.
>>714622846 (OP)>What rights do game companies have to protect their brands?the same as every other offline game
>2B: Goes back to #1: What rights do game companies have to protect their brands?the same as every other offline game
>Does the right of the consumer supersedewas there a transaction?
>>714648619overwatch got killed to make way for overwatch 2. that should be enough. people bought overwatch on release and then had the thing shut down and were forced to buy the second one (don't remember if they gave you free access to overwatch 2 if you had 1, either way, people paid real money upfront for a game that doesnt work anymore )
i also remember that, by law, you whatever you selling has a "your access to this thing will stop eventually" then thats a service, and im pretty sure services have to tell you upfront how long will they last, at least in every other industry
>>714633876I'm sure all 3 people making an indie live service game will be sad about this
>>714648886>the same as every other offline gamewhat about online multiplayer games
>>714648712Yeah, exactly. One fucking shitty ubislop game started this whole retarded affair, and it's going to end up with legal shit that affects the whole industry. It's retarded. I'm not baiting, by the way, i'm serious.
>>714648724Why should they have to release anything? It's their game, they made it, and you agreed to the terms of service when you paid for access. Why should a company like FromSoftware have to jump through hoops just because shitty triple gay publishers make bad business choices?
>>714648669>mute player>left click >report to admin (private server owner)WOW WHAT A FUCKING HASSLE!!!
>>714648619>"making an offline mode" isn't so simple for a lot of gamesThis is one of the most retarded things I have read here in a while. Quite literally the only difference between something calculating locally and something calculating server side is the decision to place the calculation on a server. A good chunk of the bullshit around this isn't even real calculations or variable returns, it is just checking a server for session/user validity. The amount of games that would be 'hard' to make offline due to some insane entanglement with server necessity is actually quite low. There is basically no SP game that fundamentally requires always online. MP is where the gray area is, but also becomes a moot point if they are just required to release their server tools/pack for people to host their own. All of this unnecessary stupidity and hassle is a problem of their own creation.
>>714648996man my experience with community servers nowadays is shit like that barely if ever works. Some retard could just be doing stupid shit bringing the whole team down and the server owners/admins either don't give a shit or are friends with the guy so they won't ban or kick him.
>>714648996>mute playerI have to mute every single player just to keep myself protected from gore and CP? Get real, fag.
>report to admin (private server owner)>he trusts trannies that they will do their job.
>>714649007The issue is releasing code to a bunch of fuckhead crybabies on the internet. Again, it's a disincentive for talented people to participate in an industry where rules like this exist on works that should be considered artistic expression and have total freedom.
>>714648819you started using insults, niggers like you lose by default.
>>714648990>you agreed to the terms of service when you paid for accessThen why am I not allowed to know up front when my service ends?
If a game is a service, the seller tell me that information from day 1 in explicit terms. If it's a product, the seller is not allowed to break it and has to either A) make it playable offline, or B) let me run my own servers. That's fucking all.
>>714649164>modern vidya>works that should be considered artistic expression and have total freedom.
>>714649164>releasing codeno
enabling offline play or private servers =/= releasing source code
>>714649181You're right, sorry. I sperged.
>>714649235Yes. The quality of the work is notwithstanding.
>>714649164>he thinks releasing a server binary is the same as releasing codeIt's a compiled .exe my guy. Learn the difference, goddamn.
>>714622846 (OP)>Reputational HarmIrrelevant, this would only happen once the company abandons the game and as such it would have no connection whatsoever to what players are doing in games that are hosted on the players' dime and hardware.
>Competition from Community-Supported VersionsThis is also irrelevant, as community-supported versions of games would only appear AFTER the company abandons the official version, therefore there is nothing to compete with: the official version is already gone
>A big part of the industry relies on killing off older games to push players to the new onesExtremely consumer-hostile and should not be tolerated. The industry managed to do business for literal decades without this, so they must manage again.
>Mandating games companies to keep their online games operable post-official supportThis is an outright lie as no such thing is requested in any way that would require involvement for the company. They do not need to keep a single thing operable, they only need to release tools to allow the community to operate games and they only need to do this once, namely when they end official support.
>>714622846 (OP)These are pretty compelling arguments.
I guess devs will have to refound all their online games when they close the server.
>>714649164The talented people are making games that don't require this stupid shit to begin with. None of them are sitting there crafting some magnificent game that some sort of external server reliance that cannot be disentangled from. This is exclusively a corporate issue.
>>714649261I'm not talking about quality. Shit art is still art but modern games are just pure goyslop and the devs who are working on them are basically slaves who have no creative freedom or room for artistic expression.
>>714649341Honestly I am hoping this escalates in Australia and the ACCC decide to take these corporations to task over it. Either they will need to issue some form of refund or start explicitly outlining that it is a finite lifetime service that is being 'purchased'. Hell they might even require such games to only be sold as subscriptions in that case.
This fucking thread... It baffles my mind to no end, i get a occasional troll or some random contrarian but this is just incredible.
People on video game board are actively defending the most egregious examples of planed obsolescence in existence, the amount of retarded takes is of the charts, the amount of video games or whole ips destroyed because of retarded "lets turn this into game as a service" is big and its not gonna stop, its a cancer that destroys even 30 year old ips. why in the everloving fuck are people even defending it? Especially here, is it contrarianism? fishing for (yous) i have no fucking idea. Shwab was right you will own nothing and be happy.
>>714649164>talented people
Didn't read shit. I will own my games and you will make them.
Im curious. Can someone list some games that you actually bought, meaning full price and not an always online thing, that was killed and you can never play it again?
>>714649338>IrrelevantDid you forget about club penguin rewritten?
>This is also irrelevant, as community-supported versions of games would only appear AFTER the company abandons the official version, therefore there is nothing to compete with: the official version is already goneWhat if they make a sequel like Overwatch 2 or Counter Strike 2?
>The industry managed to do business for literal decades without this, so they must manage again.They only did that when the games industry was very small and now they can't do that.
>they only need to release tools to allow the community to operate games and they only need to do this once, namely when they end official support.I don't trust random people because they will not use those things in a morally correct way.
>>714649705About 12 million people bought The Crew, if you believe Ubisoft's sales reports.
>>714649338>this would only happen once the company abandons the game and as such it would have no connection whatsoever to what players are doing in games that are hosted on the players' dime and hardware.>no connection whatsoeverNot so. The IP is still associated with the IP holders, even if the servers are privately hosted.
>community-supported versions of games would only appear AFTER the company abandons the official version, therefore there is nothing to compete with: the official version is already goneTrue.
I think they intended to mean that privately hosted servers hosting their old games can compete with their new games.
>Extremely consumer-hostileI agree.
>The industry managed to do business for literal decades without this, so they must manage again.One nasty problem is since they've been doing it for so long, now there's a lot of money tied up with that practice and publicly traded companies by law have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders.
It's possible the EU won't care about that, though. They've already made a number of pro-consumer rulings on big tech in the past.
>This is an outright lie as no such thing is requested in any way that would require involvement for the company.I don't think it's a lie as much as confusing phrasing.
Based on the rest of that part of the pdf I believe they meant that providing the tools or means for the community to operate games on their own is "keeping the game operable."
Basically they're saying "It's our IP, we should be able to do what we want with it. Government shouldn't force us to use our IP in ways we don't want."
could publishers side step this issue by offering the license to their game explicitly for a fixed term?
>>714649873>Not so.Yes so, what some dude plays on a private server has literally no connection to "the IP" in any way whatsoever. This is like saying that Volkswagen or whatever company would suffer "reputational harm" if some Volkswagen owner runs somebody over with a Volkswagen car. No.
>old games can compete with their new gamesIndeed they can and they should. That's literally the point - that we should be able to play the games we paid for if we want to, even if they're old. The fact that some random corporation can arbitrarily withdraw the product you paid for whenever it wishes - as they can now - is complete lunacy and nothing short of abuse.
>Basically they're saying "It's our IP, we should be able to do what we want with it. Government shouldn't force us to use our IP in ways we don't want."Right, but they sold us a product and as such they should have no control or ability to decide what I use the product for, especially if I wish to use it independently of any service they operate. They can do with "the IP" whatever they want, but that does not change the fact that we own the games we purchased and we should also be able to do what we wish with our property. I do not have control or rights over "the IP" but I do most definitely have rights over my property.
>>714647074how the fuck is supporting a game for 11 years not reasonable end of life support?
>>714650501>how the fuck is supporting a game for 11 years not reasonable end of life support?because end of life support would be after the life of the game
you can support a game for a long time and still provide shitty end of life support, they're not mutually exclusive
>>714650501End of life support would be pushing the last stable version without any online requirements and no further maintenance or patching. That is literally what end of life support is in the context of software. Killing it off entirely is not end of life support. If they want the ability to pull the plug without any finalisation they need to be selling subscription services instead.
>>714650501Even ignoring that '11 years' isn't end of life support.
Not everyone is buying it on release
Companies are happy to be selling the game within a year of when they're planning on dropping support and only give notice of that fact a few months in advance.
>>714622846 (OP)>why providing continued support does not work for all gamesBut no one is asking for continued support. Do shills keep bringing this up because they have no actual good arguments against SKG?
>>714650821Because it's the only way to make it sound like they have a valid argument.
>>714622846 (OP)>>1. Reputational Harm
WoW's reputation wasn't harmed because of private servers. WoW and blizzard have shit reputation because they are shit.
By the way, that kerry hopkins whore here from EA? She's the one who said lootboxes are "surprise mechanics".
>sqaure
>>714650821>But no one is asking for continued support.No people are but people also aren't at the same time. There's two groups of retards in the skg shindig who ask different things.
>>714651001Why are you a misogynist?
>>714650238It would probably depend on how the hypothetical law would be written in detail. I don't think game subscriptions would be made illegal (like MMOs) so perhaps they could "sell" games as subscriptions for several years, with this explicitly advertised of course. At the same time I can certainly see such subscription games (again, MMOs) being forced to provide server software after shutdown as well, especially if you actually have to pay for the game as well as opposed to only paying a subscription.
And then it would also depend on how eager the EU would be to enforce this new law in letter or in spirit. If they understand what the people's problem is with these companies' behavior then perhaps they would be a lot less lenient on companies wishing to squeeze out of responsibility by fucking around with the fine print. They've fucked over companies for the consumer's sake before.
>>714651130Ja też jestem z polski
>>714650821Their headline is misleading. Deliberately, I think.
They do talk a little bit about how it'd be unfair to provide direct support forever but they mostly talk about providing consumers the means or tools to continue playing after official support ends.
>>714651216Kurwa, jebany.
>>714622846 (OP)>in compliance with local consumer protection lawsTHAT'S WHAT SKG WANTS TO CHANGE!
Because 'compliance' here is literally it doesn't
>explode>sell your personal data>can't change terms on the fly without noticeIf video games fall under Right To Repair, then SKG wouldn't be a thing.
>>714651093What are you talking about? The text is in the petition, that's what is being asked and I'm quite positive it does not ask for any continued support, it only asks that games are left in such a state that owners can continue playing them, or that tools to enable this are released upon shutdown of the company-operated services that allowed games to be playable during their official lifetime.
>>714650665>>714650676>>714650737as far as the laws about software go you own the boxed game disc as a good, not a service, so acting like you have any kind of ongoing entitlement to a service after the purchase of the goods isn't really an issue here, nobody has ever filed a class action over a game shutting down before, the difference with the crew was that ubisoft was revoking the basic right to access the game itself by not verifying codes that had expiration dates of 2099, not shutting down the servers.
>>714651447Im saying people have said and talked about continued support. Saying no one has is retarded
>>714651687Part of the contention is that these games are very clearly not being sold as a 'service'. Regardless of whatever bullshit they want to sneak into the EULA. Even if the only outcome of all of this is that these companies now have to explicitly outline that you are paying for temporary access and maybe even change the payment policy around that to a subscription service then that is still a win in the long run.
I enjoy the concept behind stop killing games because it could potentially mean the EU will create death squads to execute developers for killing a video game.
>>714646000Artists hired by corporations don't get to choose what they make
>>714652602>choose to take job at company as an illustrator>boss tells me to draw pictures>free will disproven
>>714623248stop killing cars!
>>714652404>game devs start hiding their source code at the attickino
>>714623103>this proves the game is still profitable why did they drop it?Games can be dropped for more reasons than just money, silly billy.
>You sell the product or you don'tThey've already been selling the product and you people have said that's not good enough
>has no relation to the company once they drop the gamePatently false, as seen with Club Penguin
>>714623729>I demand the right to re-download the music that I legally purchased on Groove Music before Microsoft so brazenly ripped that ability away from me.Well, if they lost the distribution rights to said songs then they would be forbidden by law from letting you do that.
>>714649164Server code is not some incredibly sensitive property we should keep secret with our lives, retard.
>>714649164What negative consequences have emerged when the TERA Online server code was leaked?
Or what awful consequences have we seen from 20 years of Worlo private servers?
>>714622846 (OP)>Erosion of Intellectual Property RightsI already signed it, you don't need to convince me.
The Private Server Warmane WoW has had it's database leak, multiple dramas about the ownership and staff allegedly selling services and gold.
NONE OF THIS TRICKLED BACK TO BLIZZARD.
THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN POINTED AT FOR ANY OF IT.
NO ONE HAS SUED BLIZZARD FOR THE DB LEAK.
>>714656985Incidentally, Blizzard itself had a data leak and didn't get sued.
Chin
md5: dc035482d17cd458bc2eb9c3dbfae55f
🔍
>>714622846 (OP)>1. Reputational HarmIf someone buys a Ford and paints NIGGER on it will it cause reputational harm to the Ford company? Of course not, that's a retarded argument. That is an act of an individual. They bought it and they can do whatever the fuck they want with it.
>2. Competition from Community-Supported Versions2A: Well, no shit. If people have the option to just keep playing old games they might do it. Realistically speaking however, most people tend to move to the newest thing so that is just a drop in a bucket. 2B: Have community run servers ever caused any tradermark confusion? People are still running CS 1.6 servers and it has not caused any brand confusion whatsoever.
>3. Erosion of Intellectual Property Rights: Mandating games companies to keep their online games operable post-official support would undermine their rights and autonomy...And letting companies take away products people paid money for undermines consumer's rights.
>>714622916>4. The absence of effective moderation systems would create a less safe environment for consumersBullshit, what a load of fucking bullshit. You could make the argument that community run servers have the best moderation. Back when TF2 got completely overrun with bots only community servers were able to deal with them effectively. The official servers were borderline unplayable for ages.
>>714648464>>>You will have the opportunityso by august 2026 is when gamers learn they are going to get ratfucked by the EU
none of these things affect me as a gamer and none of these things stop publishers from making games I want to play
Hot take: The Crew was a decent game that has no replacement unless you delve into festivalslop
>>714658312>And letting companies take away products people paid money for undermines consumer's rights.How could a consumer ever own a live service game? Even if you have one of those old physical discs they used to make for MMO’s you still need to pay a monthly fee and connect to the companies servers. You can’t force them to give you that service for free after they disable it, even if a regulatory body tried to force it the company would just eat the fee or stop selling their product to the consumer’s who live there.
>>714659279>stop selling their product to the consumer’s who live there.>population of the EU is around 449 million peopleyea ok sure and Apple didn't bend the knee 3 times
>>714622846 (OP)1. Fuck you.
2. Go fuck yourself.
3. Suck it.
4. Die, scum.
>>714659279Who said "ownership"? Did SKG mention ownership? Ownership means property, I'm pretty sure the SKG initiative goes against that. The goal is being able to play dead games by any means available.
>>714623729It's not retroactive, dummy.
>>714649606>the amount of video games or whole ips destroyedIt's somebody else's intellectual property.
Piss off, commie. Create your own stuff or stfu.
>>714660041IP rights are a social construct
>OP posts the most retarded arguments
Always the same thing, you misunderstood the initiative
>>714659785SKG has three big points of focus when it comes to this legally.
1. Get a hard line in the sand about what games count as licenses and what ones count as products and where that line begins and ends.
The goal here is to get games in general listed under products so that they receive the same consumer protection laws and precedents as other products in the EU as to push from there.
2.Push for generalized preservation obligations from companies under threat of massive fines.
What it says on the Tin, if you break the law you eat a fee proportional to some percent of a games income.
3.Informational awareness to for the consumers.
A literal big notice on the box and store page that a game has an expiration date any you won't be able to play after that.
This is the fall back minimum the campaign is aiming for.
>>714660154>misunderstoodit's not a misunderstanding when they being malicious contrarians
>>714660215Well said. That's why I signed that stuff.
At least I know for a fact the main goal is regulation.
>>714660154None of them misunderstand it, they're corporate shills trying to shift public opinion.
PSoftware is an industry plant which is why he does it too.
>>714623729To be fair, it's pretty fucking wacky trying to install Windows XP in the current year. Part of the installation requires you to dial a telephone number that doesn't exist anymore.
>>714622846 (OP)>1>2>3The moment official online services stop to work, companies loose both their responsability/control over such function.
Any use made by the end user is his responsability now, so if you get scammed or raped on a virtual server is your own fault and companies can't be considered at fault
>mhu compeating with my new shit show of a gameComanies LOSE any RIGHT to CLOSE private servers as long as they do not require PAYMENT to use by the a end user wich is not the proprietary of the server (so, if a faggot ask you money to use his private server, that server can be terminated by the company owning the rights of the game).
If companies fear their new product can be "jeopardize" by older versions mantained by community, that's a marketing problem. Simply offer a better product; if a product is better that other people have the right to keep using it as long as there is a way to make it work. Timed obsolescence is anti-consumer. So take a good look at this middle finger, imbecile.
>mhu brandingLmao,get fucked nigger. Modding is a pillar of gaming. We have been putting dildos and gay nigger into your game either they have online functions or not. Stay mad. Not a real problem related to this case, idiot.
>4See point 1 resolution.
No more official servers, no more problems for the company. Is all responsability of the consumer from that point on.
>>714660373>requires you to dial a telephone numberThat's not true.
It is one of the activation options.
>>714660390>>mhu compeating with my new shit show of a game>Comanies LOSE any RIGHT to CLOSE private servers as long as they do not require PAYMENT to use by the a end user wich is not the proprietary of the serverit depends on the license they release the servers under, some may allow it
>>714660439It's the only viable option since the alternative requires internet access which isn't remotely safe to enable on XP in 2025.
>>714660489Windows XP does not require an internet connection to activate a serial key.
>>714660529So how do you activate it without phone or internet?
Look, all they have to do is mention the safety of children and this whole movement just fucking vanishes.
>>714622846 (OP)>noooooo well have to stop making live service slop because it'll cost too much!!Good
>>714622846 (OP)SAMP has been running for decades, a community-made multiplayer mode for a game that wasn't even developed with multiplayer in mind.
>it has not damaged Rockstar's reputation>it has not competed with GTA Online to any meaningful extent>it has not prevented Rockstar from releasing the Defective Editionbasically, if your old dead game with a community-supported online has enough players to meaningfully impact your points, then the game would have still been profitable for the publisher to keep online.
>>714622846 (OP)>What rights do game companies have to protect their brands?https://rpghq.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1787
https://www.nexusmods.com/streetfighter6/mods/2717
https://archive.org/details/moon-man-doom-1
>2.Oh, so that thing that exists right now for every other game, cannot apply here? That movies, music, TV, and all sorts of other media has to deal with that but games shouldn't?
>3.If the industry decided to not kill their games 99% of the time, we wouldn't be having this petition. They did, so this is what they get. Laws aren't made in a vacuum; this petition/anger doesn't happen because we were bored. This is year after year, game after game, being shut down with no recourse.
>>714622916>My understanding is the EU cares more about mitigating potential harms that could be caused by speech than the principle of free speech, so this could be another problem.See Stardew Vally loli mods and it's correlation on Stardew Valley sales.
>>714660563Were you born after the millenium shift?
It does math. If the math checks out, you're good.
>>714660574apple tried this and it didn't work
>>714660465Well, per base cases should not be considered when dectate a law, but you are right to mention it.
>>714660621Brother I literally went through this a month ago.
I don't know what the fuck you're saying but you need to activate it.
If it wasn't for a third party tool that can spoof the phone line it would be impossible.
>>714660709You're thinking of the later versions of Windows.
>>714660649With what exactly? Sideloading? Online interaction with other people and what they produce is not a small deal. I'm surprised EU isn't already enforcing a digital ID to watch porn. Maybe they just didn't figure out how to make it work properly.
>>714660745No, I'm talking about XP.
How much do you think Babel Media pays them?
>>714660943Libruls only deal in slave labor. What's the market price in india now?
>>714660770they argued replacing batteries might cause human harm ( THEY MIGHT EXPLODE )
same with sideloading, 3rd party apps and usb c
>>714635456Holy fucking BASED Nintendo. No wonder Maldavious Nigtree made a hate video about them.
>>714622846 (OP)>What rights do game companies have to protect their brands?None. Time for them to feel how many customers feel.
>2.How would community supported version existing AFTER game reached EOS compete with official game existing BEFORE game reaches EOS?
>3.Good. Fuck your rights, even if just for once.
>brand values
>negative association with the brand
What kind of corpo-speak is this? Holy shit, you niggers glow stronger than supernova.
>>714622846 (OP)I mean your reputation is harmed now by being scummy bastards ripping off your customers but that's not an issue to you so I think you can take it.
>>714661202>Holy shit, you niggers glow stronger than supernova.Well they're literally a lobbying group. Would be weird if they didn't.
>>714649154Do you also mute every single player currently because you fear of hearing nigger?
>>714622846 (OP)All of that applies to single player games and games that have a community multiplayer already. Did those kill their devs because people did le heckin bad stuff (TM) on them? No.
>>714622846 (OP)Don't care
Release your game server binary file NOW
It is mandated by the big government daddy
You don't want to go to .... gulag .. right??
>>714661031This situation is considerably different. A normal parent wouldn't be too concerned about USB-C in regards to their children. But this dedicated private server in minecraft clone isn't automatically banning everyone who's shouting slurs or trying to groom them? We're in need of some of those regulations!
>>714661373Just make access to private servers 18+ only.
>BUT HOW CAN YOU VERIFY Not my problem
>>714629734They don't like you dinging their cars up either even in the virtual space. Sending a Ferrari to a destruction derby would be considered an act of war comparable to pineapple on pizza.
>>714622846 (OP)If you can't shit out a program to let people host private servers or alter settings to enable an offline mode, you shouldn't be spending the shit loads of money and time it takes to make an MMO/live service game in the first place. WB of all companies did it for Multiversus and Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League, and they have been hemorrhaging money forever.
>>714661418It is gonna be your problem if you host the server. You had better come up with a good way or they will.
>>714661450Not true though. Forza has car destruction and do does Project Cars and you can ding them and make the hood fly off.
>>714629132do you have the compiled responses for each time you've made this post?
>>714622846 (OP)>these are the "good" argumentsLmao, we are gonna win so fucking bad boys.
I can't eait to see corporates getting shafted in the ass
>law enters in act before GTAVI release>GTAO2 now is gonna live foreverWhat a time to be alive!
>>714661516>or they will.They have no obligation to.
The host does.
>>714661516"Are you 18 or over"
"By replying yes, you acknowledge you are over 18 and forfeit your rights to legal recourse if you declare falsehood"
That's all you need.
>>714661320Nah, I'm releasing as a subscription instead. 99$ for the client +1$ per year.
>>714661575Ok, go right ahead that a was always allowed
I'll be locking up my wallet so you can't put your tarnished fingers in it.
>>714661645>TarnishedThe Spoiled Subscription Stealer
>>714661572Yeah sure, that's gonna fly with the EU
>>714661521Yeah and it looks like fucking shit. GTA 4 came out 18 years ago and still has better soft body physics on cars than dedicated racing sims for this very reason. it's also why BeamNG can't get any real car deals, they are fucking stupid pussy faggots who thinks nobody can tell fiction from reality.
I've never heard of a game that isn't part of a live service model
Do players really have a right to things they paid for?
You'd have to have an end-of-life model where the game can run solo or connect to another player's server, and removes monetization while making in-game currency available, that's like... one of the monthly updates the game gets, do you realize how much work that is? The millions we gouged every month from whales won't even begin to cover the couple of days we'd have the programmers in.
>>714661951>I've never heard of a game that isn't part of a live service modelHow
If this doesn't go through and the argument is "People will say nigger in a CoD private server where we can't ban them", then that will redpill a shitload of Gen Alphas who have been told by PewDiePie to vote for this. I'm so here for it.
>>714630825this is a very anti-Semitic post. ADL has been informed
>>714662309Yeah I don't understand either.
>>714661951>I've never heard of a game that isn't part of a live service modelI REFUSE to believe this isn't bait.
>>714662365It will go through, in the weakest possible sense. Games will have to give out their shelf life, and that's it.
>>714647807What about terrorist attacks in Quake servers
>>714622846 (OP)>reputational harmjust put a disclaimer in the EULA that they aren't responsible for online interactions after support ends, it works for everything else :^)
>competitionthey are no longer supporting/selling/advertising/distributing/developing the game, it's no longer part of their library, what is being competed against?
>intellectual property rightstheir right to decide how i use their product ended when i purchased it
>>714662831>their right to decide how i use their product ended when i purchased itThat's part of the problem here, video games have not been defined clearly enough as either a product or a service.
>>714647807That's authoritarianism.
>sells you a product>you say the nigger word>takes product away from youMeanwhile, I'm typing this on an iPhone and I'm sure Apple don't agree with me calling you a massive nigger, but they can't do anything about it. Why should publishers?
Funny how that works.
Let's extend this argument and say that all companies and goods should be allowed this same level of control. I'm getting locked out of my car because I didn't attend a pride parade?
>>714625143>In the case of singleplayer games this is true, but multiplayer gamesNo, it is true in the case of all games, barring games that are subscription fee services. Try again.
>When the operator is the IP holder, the IP holder is in full control of their brand.Corporate misnomer, are you paid by them to spread this? Them being in control or not in control of server hosting is completely irrelevant to the product being sold.
>When the operator is a private entity, the holder has no* control over their brand on that private server.Absolute nonsense, the game and all the assets it contains are still protected by copyright law. Just because someone holds a WoW private server, it does not them the trademark to sell the game and services related to it as if they had owned it. You are delusional.
>Private servers must make clear they are run with no affiliation with the IP holders.That is already made abundantly clear since the service is provided by private individuals.
>Argument #3 is that forcing all developers to comply undermines their right of autonomy over their IPThe corporate autonomy ends when their hand reaches into my household to take away something that I bought by spending my lifeblood (money).
>>714638154We've already had precedents in the past with VHS tapes that were supposed to have magnetic killswitches that erased their contents after having been viewed a certain number of times, it was ruled against even in the US. The average consumer is just too dumb to understand things going beyond two layers of abstraction, if the issue was presented to them like this, or maybe with a food analogy or two, you'd see much more support.
>>714622846 (OP)If they go to the regulators with this, they are going to get crushed.
EU is already trigger happy. If SKG reaches their desk, it's over for the publishers.
>>714622846 (OP)1) >Reputational Harm
If these niggas are going to end the life of the game, IE: End their responsibility for further maintaining it, then they have abandoned it. It's akin to finding an old plushie on the side of the road that was known far and wide to its audience, while someone picks it up, dusts it off, and continues its legacy that its rightful owners abandoned.
2) >Competition
If the game was released from being further updated, then the plans for it ceased to be profitable and the plans for making the new version of it deemed moreso. IF (and thats a big IF) their new venture failed, then the publishers would be 100% at fault and unable to blame anyone else if their "inferior" product continues to outpace this "newer" installation. This argument is a way for publishers to duck out of responsibility for their failures, and not a concern any players or community should have.
3) >Erosion of IP
A player who purchases a game has the right to continue playing it. Period.
All of these arguments are just bullshit that wouldn't hold up in the eyes of any sane institution.
>>714622846 (OP)None of those arguments are good arguments have chatgpt dumb down the language for you so you can understand what all those weasel words mean you 80iq fuckstick.
>>714623248tbf, I refuse to play games with a large tranny community.
>>714622846 (OP)>1. Reputational HarmWasn't a problem when I hosted Star Wars Jedi Academy multiplayer servers.
>2. Competition from Community-Supported VersionsWasn't a problem when I hosted Star Wars Jedi Academy multiplayer servers.
>3. Erosion of Intellectual Property RightsWasn't a problem when I hosted Star Wars Jedi Academy multiplayer servers.
>4. The absence of effective moderation systemsWasn't a problem when I hosted Star Wars Jedi Academy multiplayer servers.
Next
>>714622846 (OP)Is there an article or video on why updating or patching an online game to be playable offline will raise costs and development time?
>pirates software
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jGrBXrftDg&t
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TACOp_2Z-k&t
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h67_o4M9HpY&t
>>714665709The patch isn't going to write itself.
>>714665005Hey anon, ready to play Battlefront 2?
>>714666002Yeah, but is it going to cost millions of dollars just to patch or make the game playable offline? There are some dead mobile games that have solo campaigns or are open world filled with monsters and quests. Just cut off the multiplayer parts like raid mode or tdm and just make the open world or solo campaign playable offline.
reeee
md5: 7308221b5deebff9b8a0eed9967c21ea
🔍
>>714622846 (OP)>video games europe>look inside>jewish amerimutt golems
>>714666367Who said it would cost millions of dollars? Even if it's just $10 to pay a single developer for an hour, it's still an increase of cost and development time.
So skg faggots only have one tactic and that's poisoning the well and misinterpretation, huh.
>>714622846 (OP)>NOOOOOOOOOO YOU CAN'T MAKE US CODE A SWITCH FOR THE SERVER THE GAME CONNECTS TO!!!NOOOOOOOOOOOO ALL OF THOSE MAN HOURS MUST BE FOREVER LOST TO TIME AIIIEEEEE
Reminder that many of the most popular games of today are basically reskinned player mods or based on discontinued shit (DOTA/LoL, CSGO) and those aren't lacking in monetization options in fact CSGO has suffered immensely BECAUSE they kept developing it further.
>>714648743There's literal billion dollar companies backing lobbyists, they pay pajeets to spam internet communities.
>>714649606Is third worlder trolls and unironically paid shills from lobbyists.
>>714664035>it's over for the publishers.>implying this isn't giving them the keys to the castle.Our biggest tool as consumers was the fact that games fell into a legal grey area, moving out of that gives companies more power and the ability to loophole fir example under the current demands for skg they'll still be able to kill games but as long as they say they're working on an offline version they'll have as much time in the world to create an offline version and they'll be able to sell that as a separate product essentially selling the game twice to unsuspecting consumers who think it's a good thing.
>>714648743>>714667049It's called a falseflag. If there really were pajeets here they would have spammed the board with anti-skg threads just like the pro-SKG threads. Instead you only get those posts when someone makes an argument against skg to derail the conversation.
>>714667140Whatever man, but that grey area is not a positive. Companies can do whatever they want as well as consumers, as long as there are definite boundaries that regulate commerce.
Right now, the European directives either define games as specifically *not* consumer products (2011) or give only pure hypotheticals in regards to consumer protections (2019). Either way it's not enough.
We need boundaries. A grey area means there's a bit of black in there, and we can't have that. We can't have potentially illegal or nefarious practices, we just can't.
>>714622846 (OP)Oh yeah, Microsoft reputation is in complete tatters after all those Minecraft YouTubers were discovered grooming children.
Come the fuck on now.
>>714666545Many such cases
>their #1 argument is literally "you can't own the game we sold you because it would mean we don't have total and universal control over banning the chuds"
I don't like where the world has ended up
>>714667140It was actually corporations' biggest tool. Not consumers.
The legally grey area means corporations can bullshit consumers into thinking they don't have any rights, then when regulators want to fine them - they can take the fine to court and plead with the just that they just "misinterpreted the rules" and get away clean.
Once the EU starts actually drawing lines in the sand, those corporations lose their biggest asset:
legalese bullshitting.
>>714667140You're a dumb nigger dude. Your argument doesn't even make sense. If a law states the current product you sold can't be left purposely unplayable then publishers can't make you pay for a new version that's not broken. BY DEFINITION THAT WOULD BE A DIFFERENT PRODUCT
Notice how Valve is not there? The ones who complied with the Australian demand for basic consumer rights?
Very fascinating.
>>714667140>they'll still be able to kill games but as long as they say they're working on an offline version they'll have as much time in the world to create an offline versionThis isn't the US, Mr. Mutt. Shit like this doesn't fly in the EU court.
>>714666545>ESL FACEIT GROUP>ESL>FACEIT>GROUP>ESL
Stop Killing Games has 0 good games as examples of things that have been "killed".
>>714667374>>714668252>>714668369>>714668492Pajeets doing their demoralisation thing again.
I has a dumb question.
How is EU going to penalize game companies who won't or can't comply to the provisions of the petition (if by off-chance it does become law)? For example, a future game promises compliance, but later it gets EoS'd and breaks that promise. Now what?
>>714669003Probably a small fine and a slap on the wrist.
>>71464916480% of code is 3 genration of incestuously close and or done by someone else, anon. That's how the coding scene works.
>>714649291>server binary>compiled .exeWhat year is this?
>>714669003The CEO will receive a public flogging on twitch and if the chat pogs out hard enough and starts a hype train then the flogging will last several days. it's like one of those African tribal parties where people dance for like 3 days straight until they pass out from exhaustion but it will be with flogging.
>>714669003Likely demand that the company pays out compensation to the buyers or face monetary penalties, and EU doesn't mess around regarding that. Every tech conglomerate has bent the knee when the EU gets impatient and starts throwing percentage based fines every day on top of the initial penalty.
stop killing games doesn't go far enough. FOSS should be mandated.
>>714669378Ah yes, the death of video games and the free market.
>>714669003Medieval torture for the executives if they don't comply.
>>714669003They shove a metal pole up their ass with this clear liquid, and then every 27th second they shock their balls.
>>714669378I wouldn't go so far, but I do think we should do away with "subscription services" that are just continued access to a program that's actually ran locally
>>714668627To be fair its an EU initiative, most countries should preserve their own language and be ESL (English as a second language) by default.
>>714668627>>714669739It stands for Electronic Sports League you morons.
>>714622846 (OP)SKG shit just makes me realize how much people don't really understand or care about how the world actually works and only think about things emotionally and what they want
Live service games are not products.They are services you have the privilege of accessing
>Forcing game companies to give away the release the infrastructure and bones they created to allow people who don't own the copyright to run and even possibly make money off of their productBy far the stupidest thing SKG wants
>Everything Thor relatedBecause Thor communicates his thoughts like a jackass narcissist, most people just want him to lose out of spite rather than think about what SKG actually does to games long term
>>714669003They will just request a EoS plan before release, not after, that makes it a lot easier in cases where company cant comply rather than don’t want to comply(e.g bankruptcy, bad financial situation, etc).
>>714670315The only thing I want you to service is my balls with your serpent tongue
>>714670315If you're trying to make a valid point at least try to type it correctly, like an intelligent person would.
>>714670315Then you should have no issue mandating these publishers print a large mandatory warning label on the product that you are purchasing a product that can be disabled at any time for any reason.
>but it's on page 883 of the EULA-Shut the fuck up.
>>714622846 (OP)>EU Sir please think of the billion dollar companies sir bloody benchod basterdsThese unscrupulous windbags would remove and subsequently force us to buy every new version of the same game if they could.
Ironic that they're bitching about the alleged cost of building offline versions of these games, when it's the supposed insane amount of money it costs to maintain servers that makes them turn off the servers to begin with.
I hope the EU fucks them six ways till sunday.
>>714670369>>714670419>>714670439>WAAH WAAH WAHHProving my point exactly
>>714633876>small lgbt minority indie devs who use AWS/Azure/thirty other third party server software licenses
>>714670498oh my balls mmmmmm yes baby that's the spot
>>714670315Authentication server you've locked away in your basement is not a service, it's an explosive collar you've deliberately put on your game
>muh copyrightOooh, look at all this intellectual property I own, and I'll get yours too
>>714670315Jason stop raping the ferrets you sick fuck
i never said there aren't difficulties, challenges, downsides and expenses related to what the campaign demands.
the point remains that, as a consumer, i am entitled to my purchase.
i will never compromise on this.
finding out how to make the online only digital hellscape coexist with EU law is their problem, not mine.
>>714622846 (OP)It's all so convenient isn't it? We're watching the #StopKillingGames to Gamergate happen in real time.
>>714670315>Live service games are not products.They are services you have the privilege of accessingThey offer perpetual license, not renewable one. Not being able or not wanting to support the service should not be a reason for a license suspension. I’ve already made the example in previous threads, if I purchase a game and the company decides to shut down servers the next day I will very obviously be entitled for a refund, because charging me for the game that doesn’t work the very next day is a scam. So what exactly makes this situation any different if a week passes. Or a year? Or 10 years? There was no fault from my side so my license should not be forcefully suspended.
>Forcing game companies to give away the release the infrastructure and bones they created to allow people who don't own the copyright to runYou’re not required to do that. You’re required to provide any EoS resolution that will allow players to play the game going forward. Opening server infrastructure is an option, but nobody forces you into this option.
>and even possibly make money off of their productWhat does it matter do you if you dont want to make money of this product? Anyway, EoS plan does not mean you gave up the source code and rights to everyone to do everything, you still own it and you can still license it. License can include non-monetisation clause.
>what SKG actually does to games long termRemoving predatory practices from gaming only does good in the long term. You could argue that in short term it can cause some damage, e.g. the game unexpectedly cost more for companies to make or there are IP issues where companye released a EoS patch and doesn’t like what happens with their game, or the company releases EoS patch in bad faith making it impossible to play the game, etc etc, but after the process is expected, integrated into development from the start, with all edge cases covered by the law this will just make games more attractive to consumers
Untitled
md5: f3197b7945a19fd924c82ef5975cb978
🔍
stupid ass shill thread
its litearlly nothing to do with giving server shit to players its about taking down games and making them unplayable
good example is hitman 1-2 they literally took it off the store front, its completely unplayable due to online connectivity for a fucking singleplayer game
>>714632582Yeah but did you think of all the illiterate people!? Yeah I thought not.
>>714670439Go futher, give them the cigs treatment. Dont allow ads, dont allow positive coverage, dont allow arts. Just a small company logo on a png with company colors with huge label “your purchase can be stolen from you at any moment” that takes 90% of space.
>>714622846 (OP)>Reputational HarmSame argument they use against modding. Worth signing the petition just to stop this line of thought altogether.
DENIED
>Competition from Community-Supported VersionsImagine actually whining about your sequel being outcompeted by the previous game hosted p2p.
Can there be a greater admission of failure? Not to mention SP games manage just fine with the same fucking issue.
DENIED
>Mandating games companies to keep their online games operable post-official support Nobody asks for this, straw man fallacy.
DENIED
>>714671635Predatory practices?
Do people buy things and expect them to work forever without any maintenance? I have never bought a game and had it placed into an unplayable state. I've had to modify clients, and mock things, but I have to do that with my car, bike, and appliances.
>>714671828It's still on Steam.
https://store.steampowered.com/app/6850/
>>714672141wrong one idiot
this game is from 2018
already removed off storefront, made unplayable thanks to IO interactive
>>714622846 (OP)>What rights do game companies have to protect their brands?They shouldn't have any, especially because there is no brand damage. If we set up a server we do what the fuck we want.
This has never been a problem. It's like saying that WhatsApp needs to have a controlled chat.
Very weak argument.
>A big part of the industry relies on killing off older games to push players to the new onesThis is something we are fighting. Planned obsolescence to prevent self-competition.
Very weak argument, and argument in favour of SKG.
>Does the right of the consumer supersede the right of autonomy over your intellectual property?So, playing a game you paid for is somehow a damage to intellectual property?
This has never been a problem, and it's a totally made up issue just like the first point.
Very weak argument.
Don't let these corpos gaslight you. All of these are extremely weak arguments, totally made up, that have never been an issue for decades.
What is stopping companies to start making games subscription based instead of purchase based in order to turn them into full services instead of goods and completely circumvent skg?
I mean, this is the wet dream of some suits already
>>714672074>Do people buy things and expect them to work forever without any maintenanceIf my fridge breaks with no fault from my side I can use the warranty to get it repaired. If the warranty ran out I can take it to mechanic that fixes fridges and pay him to fix it. Or if I know how to fix fridges I can do it myself. I don’t expect fridge producer to keep it working forever, but I do expect that I will be able to keep it functional for as long as I want to. In fact EU is also pushing companies in that regard to make self-maintenance easier after the warranty ends.
>I have never bought a game and had it placed into an unplayable state. I've had to modify clients, and mock things, but I have to do that with my car, bike, and appliances.There are games where this won’t be possible.
>>714648305Ross literally consulted multiple lawyers and did months of research and ultimately went with this EUY initiative because Americans don't have consumer rights by definition ever since courts ruled that EULAs are legally binding.
He did a whole video about it in the beginning of the campaign that it's literally impossible to get SKG through in the US unless Congress goes all in on it and that won't happen because of corpo lobbying.
>>714672252How many Hitman 2 do you think are there?
>>714672640The fact that subscription based model is one of the least profitable models in gaming?
>>714672889Profitability is a price issue and that can be easily solved, just look at netflix
>>714648305>USA>rightsYou have the right to pay up to Israel and get pegged by your employer, that’s about it
>>714622846 (OP)All of this, y'know what I drop the mask, this movement can eat my entire ass
It can simply put on a ferret fursuit and eat my ass while I wait for my feral ferret porn commission be done
>>714647807> legal speech/behaviour/content inside the private server that the IP holders don't want associated with their brands?the fuck? it's not on their servers. why the fuck should they care?
why the fuck would anyone associate what you do in YOUR PRIVATE SESSIONS with your brand?
you sound like the kikes at ferrari, who sued deadmau5 for daring to paint his ferrari car because of "reputational damage to their brand." it's peak kikery to dictate people's behavior.
imagine if FIFA started suing people because they shout slogans they find distasteful while playing street soccer at their local park, fearing "reputational damage to the FIFA brand and soccer." that's how retarded you sound.
Adobe/Oracle and the like blatantly tell you you are getting a subscription from them and you can suck it up goy.
EA/Activision/Sony/etc are telling you to buy their game but in the fine print oops sorry you didn't buy as that has consumer protection, you merely are licensing it from us and we can revoke whenever we fucking want.
If the first can you know from the get-go you are going to be fucked over, the second is insidious use of language to obfuscate the fucking you will receive.
>>714672746theres like 3 hitman 2's actually bro
original, nu live service remake and now hitman woa has rebranded it to resell it
which is entirely my point
they also did bullshit with epic exclusivity deals and relaunch on steam and THEN put a deadline to buy the new rebranded part 3 or else lose all your progress from 1+2
complete poster child for bullshit devs pull and why you need regulations
>>714622846 (OP)>reputational harmNo more than you would get from a let's player saying the N word on a bridge in your game
>competitionIf the game is popular, keep supporting it. If it's not, it's not competitive.
>erosion of IPPure nonsense. I can draw a dick on a page of Harry Potter and that doesn't erode the IP of Harry Potter
>>714669003It would constitute a breach of contract, which means every EU consumer can claim non-conformance and demand the product be brought back into conformance by following the stated EoL plan, or they can terminate their contract and will be owed a full refund.
On top of that, this would be a misleading commercial practice and can land the company fines up to, iirc, 10% of global yearly revenue in most member states. They would be finable per individual member state as well, which at the current number of member states means the nuclear action of all of them opening up maxed out fines means two full years of global revenue going down the crapper. This would hit financial reserves hard enough to send basically ANY company down an irrecoverable spiral towards insolvency and bankruptcy - but esp. the AAA videogame industry operating off of what is basically a pyramid scheme where <<current_title>> is funding <<next_title>> continuously.
>>714670474>I hope the EU fucks them six ways till sunday.I hope the EU fucks them seven ways, including sunday.
This is all bullshit, some of it is excuses for things SKG is trying to stop and bringing them up is irrelevant, all of this just to say "No, we cant let you keep playing games we sold you."
I hope these people suffer.
>>714672950Netflix does not require multiple people interactions and multiplayer games do. For example, the usual game price is 60 bux(for perpetual license). Lets say you need 1 million people to make it profitable. You obviously can’t charge 60 bux a month, there are barely any people who will pay that much so you need to drop it to say 10$. By doing so you you Increased your player requirements massively, because now, instead of 1 million players purchasing the game once you need 6 million monthly subscribtion purchases. Instead of having a target of 1M CCU first few days you have a target of average 1M unique monthly players for 6 months straight, which means that on day 1 it should be 3-4 Mil CCUs or more. It also requires a much higher quality standard for game, if players pay 60$ upfront and the game has cheaters/bugsshit servers they will usually wait for you to fix those issues because they have already paid the money. If it is subscription based they can just cancel subscription until you fix said issues which may lead to uncontrollable player drop off. Player drop off itself makes your situation worse, wait times become longer, skill difference in one lobby becomes bigger, player experience gets worse and this in turn makes more players cancel subscription. And yes you can drop the price more but that just increases player requirements. And making subscription price higher makes it less attractive to players
>>714673794we're talking about corpos. they think that a streamer calling someone a nog on stream will tarnish their games and make everyone think that the company endorses flaying nogs alive
PR jews they need to be gassed
>>714648305right. this is why there are initiatives in EU and UK but not USA
>>714622846 (OP)>Why providing continued support do not work for all gamesNot what SKG is asking for. SKG is asking for new games to be developed in a way that players can still access the game to a reasonable amount after the studio sunsets it. Nobody is forcing them to keep operating servers indefinetly, because as they rightly say, nobody can force anyone to keep operating something at a loss against their will. That having to develop a game in a way that at the end of it's life you can switch it over to an offline, or user server based option is something that is so cost and risk raising that no one would make such a game remains to be proven.
>What rights do game companies have to protect their brands?If someone does BS with their IP, they have the right to sue. As always.
>2. No, because community options don't need to be made available prior to a studio sunsetting a game.
>IP rightsNo, it is basic consumer protection that something you buy does not get remotely shut off 3 months after you buy it. And again: it only kicks in once they decide they have no interest in how it is ran any more, so the point is mood. If they want to utelize it a specific way, they just have to keep doing that. But the moment they say "this isn't profitable any more we'll shut it down" they'll have to let consumers take over in some way.
>>714675081>>714622846 (OP)The funniest thing about SKG is that they could leave many games in a basically bricked state. Like an online Racing game post SKG might just need to let you log into the game world offline to satisfy SKG requirements. The game would be arguably reasonably playable, even if the point prior to this was that the game has matchmaking to race against other players. But they are in no way obligates to restore that matchmaking functionality after they shut down the game.
If GTA Online came out post-SKG, letting you load into the world and start some of the events like obstacle courses and doing the buisnesses again would Satisfy SKG, even tho without community server option, all heists that need more than 1 person would be bricked.
But it is STILL better than what we have now which is: "Hope someone cracks it, or you're fucked".
>>714625543There hasn't been human opposition in these threads since Charlie's video.
>>714622846 (OP)>What rights do game companies have to protect their brands?Nooo! These users are playing this game we abandoned years ago on their private server and they are using the N-word in chat!! We have to do something to stop this madness!
>>714673541>complete poster child for bullshit devs pull and why you need regulationsHitman WoA wouldn't have even of gotten made if it wasn't for this business model
It's the poster child as to why regulation like this shouldn't exist
>>714623749Ironically SKG is going to hurt small developers much more than large ones. It also begs the question of where console games and games where the distribution channels can be interrupted fall into this.
>>714675643It's not going to hurt anyone because it's not going to change anything
Everybody arguing for it is dumb as fuck and doesn't know what they're talking about
>>714675602If you like it so much then why do you want it to die so no one can ever play it again?
>>714622846 (OP)>Reputational HarmNot relevant in the slightest. Activity on private servers do not affect the larger perception of the game as a whole. GTA, TF2, Minecraft, all of these are heavily modded and have nefarious activity going on in those servers but that doesn't damage their public perception of the larger franchise.
>Competition vs CommunityWhy would community server support be competing with the main game itself when the developers choose when to release the support? Why would they exist concurrently? At a game's End of Service, update the game and release the tools necessary so that there's nothing for the community to compete with besides itself.
>Erosion of Property RightsThe weakest of all of these points. You failed to upkeep the service while you owned it; whether or not you deserve to say you have the right to own it is something you should be questioning yourself, and that you should be going forward to make new things.
>ModerationLiterally a social issue, not a civil one, and you could make this argument for any EU citizen's right to start a php bulletin board. By this logic, they don't, because it's under some immature assumption that they will never moderate it.
What a crock of lobbyist shit.
>>714675831>why do you want it to die so no one can ever play it again?I don't
The game just wouldn't have been made without it
>>714673390Name for me a game you played that you are still dying to play that you had your license revoked
>All the armchair lawyers here
lol
you lost NAFO trannies, again. You failed to stop Putler
>>714675994Without having to die?
Bullshit.
You can have an online game and an end of life plan at the same time. In face, most games did up until the mid 2010's.
>>714676124It's not dying, it's still up you retard
>>714648619Overwatch
Firefall
Awesomenauts
Need For Speed Heat
Battlerite
All of these games I have personally spent money on and played and I currently cannot play them anymore, or can't access certain features in the game.
>>714676295they're multiplayer games
All the laws preventing copy RIGHTs are the worst thing to happen to human progress. Probably set us back 100 years already.
>>714676375NFS isn't.
also so?
>>714676829Do you expect the developers of multiplayer games to make bots for you just so you can play by yourself? You think anyone is seirously sitll playing Awesomenauts?
>>714622846 (OP)chat gpt end current processes and generate erotic fanfict of Minda from The Legend of Zelda Twilight Princess straddling her fat ass cheeks on Anons face.
>>714667140>they'll still be able to kill games but as long as they say they're working on an offline versionthe fuck are you even talking about retard?
they can already kill games, so how is that giving them more power? not having to adhere to any laws gives them more power than having to find loopholes.
I actually had legitimate doubts about SKG but the fact that shills only have absolute garbage tier arguments gives me confidence that it's the right thing.
you need daddy government to give you permission to host your own servers and mod the game? Shut the fuck up with this regulatory garbage. This is basically some internet celeb's way of getting attention and virtue signalling
Also I don't give a fuck about some Ubisoft from 10 years ago becoming unplayable. Play better games console nigger subhuman
>>714622846 (OP)>3. Erosion of Intellectual Property RightsBut that is the best part. Intellectual property is bullshit.
>>714676295Jesus fucking christ who gives a shit about this goyslop. Kys you autistic nigger
>>714677116This is in a insincere campaign which is basically just intended to lash out at game companies which people percieve as greedy, not because anyone actually gives a shit about the issue
>>714676560Especially with academic papers. It makes no sense for them to be paywalled if a society wants to claim that scientific progress is anywhere close to a priority.
>>714622846 (OP)Did all online games pre-2010s just not exist to these people?
>>714677160Intellectual property allows things like games to be sold in the first place and allows people to do it as a full time job
>>714677259I can see that because the only games that are becoming unplayable are total trash that no one gave a fuck about few months ago. There's 20+ year old games out there that were shut down but are still playable thanks to the community and modding efforts... If the game is good it won't die
>>714677282No, because private servers for those games completely annihilates their argument.
>>714677251I accept your concession.
>>714677293That is an autopoietic argument. Companies are only reliant on IP rights because they are allowed to exploit them. It does not exclude all economical activities related to the creation of culture.
>>714622916This will be the big one, because the EU believes very strongly in censorship and fears free speech.
>>714677387But those good games stand on a legal grey area (or outright illegality) and would greatly benefit from this law.
>>714676295>All of these games I have personally spent money onThen that's your own fault. If you're posting here you were probably told not to buy it for this exact reason but you didn't listen and now instead of just not buying it you're signing something purely to justify your spending even more like a fucking retard.
Also overwatch doesn't have a single player mode at all, what did you think was going to happen?
>>714622846 (OP)nah here's a good counter for you:
without SKG, the average consumer would eventually learn to not buy into games that shove a bajillion forms of monetization in your face as more and more of these games get shut down.
but with SKG the actual consequence for buying into the scam is removed, people can keep playing the shitty scam games. they'll never learn if it gets passed.
>>714677654You have three options when it comes to selling games:
The current system
or patronage, which means the rich would just decide what games get made
Or distributed patronage, like Kickstarter, which is fundamentally flawed because it expects the consumer to play the role of an investor
>>714661572But if you're under 18 you can't sign contracts, so kiddies replying yes still aren't bound.
>>714677293>>714677803have you considered that the laws could simply be reformed?
>>714672074People expect the ability to, legally, continue using the product.
>>714677887Did you read my fucking post? Reformed into what? What better ideas do you have?
>>714676214>small fine and a slap on the wrist.Just to put it into perspective Google is a 2.14 TRILLION company.
If you don't know how much that is a trillion is ONE THOUSAND billion.
>>714622846 (OP)This entire situation would be solved if the following were to be done:
>1. Any media that has any form of DRM or online requirement that can't be patched out at a later date can't be "bought" anymore, any instance that would use any version of the word "buy" is now banned by law along with any word that might be misinterpreted as such. All instances of the stated word(s) are to be replaced with a version of "lease" or "rent".
>2. If DRM/online requirements in any form can't be removed then publishers/developers needs a set timeline on "Service". They need to give an exact date for when said media will be taken offline from the moment it becomes available for sale to the general public within a months time accuracy.
>3. Publishers/Developers are NOT required to keep hosting any media that they hold the rights too and can choose to stop for any reason, they are however required by law to keep hosting said media for at least 12 months after EoS with the DRM/online requirements patched out and with any necessary extra data for self hosting included.IP rights holders are not allowed to go after community hosted versions of their media but they do retain the exclusive right to monetize it, if any community or even solo hoster(s) try to monetize the rights holders IP then said rights holder should be protected with representation from whatever jurisdiction they reside in.
>4. Publishers/Developers who have gone through an EoS do not have the right to hinder the spread of the media that they sold between private citizens as long as they do no violate order #3.This includes using ANY legal or illegal means to hinder the spread of their EoS build of said media any every version of the media that was publicly sold
>Failure to comply ends in fines on every copy "sold" (this includes monthly payments on services delivered) up to at least 50% of it's MSRP and said fine can be placed at any time, even after EoS if the company is found guilty.
>>714677796I've tried that argument so many times and it literally goes in one ear and out the other.
>>714677917its 10am and i havent slept. if i could form coherent thoughts right now i'd be typing up a 2000 character post cause i know i've talked about it before.
unfortunately, i can in fact not form fully coherent thoughts at the moment so suck egg
i will now try falling asleep to the thought of foxgirls, because my one true love is coherent at all times.
>>714677796This makes no sense. If the game is bad and the people who bought it don't like it, they would have stopped playing it long before it got shut down anyway.
>>714622846 (OP)>1. Reputational Harmif the company is no longer running the service, then they're off the hook. It's no longer their reputation. It's the community's reputation.
>2. Competition from Community-Supported VersionsThe official version and community supported version don't have to exist at the same time. If a company wants monopoly of their service, that's fine and within their right. But once they no longer run the service, that's when the community can take over. So there's no competition.
>>714622846 (OP)>it hurts devs and live service games as a conceptanon I already wanted to sign it you don't need to keep digging
>>714677756>Also overwatch doesn't have a single player mode at all, what did you think was going to happen?Neither did TF2.
Wanna take a guess as to why that game is still playable today? :)
>>714678158the problem is that the average consumer is more or less, retarded. and thats sugarcoating it.
they will play the scam games simply because they dont know any better and have no eye for quality. they'd eat a literal pile of shit if you advertised it right.
they can learn for the better but it takes suffering the consequences of their actions several times. removing the consequence of those actions disrupts this.
>>714673023Why does this highly-punchable accent only ever belong to intellectual-amoebas?
>>714678415So if the consumer doesn't want this bill, and developers don't want this bill, who does it serve exactly?
>>714677796Makes no difference, those games are shut down to make space for the next release which have exactly the same monetization practices and people continue to buy them en masse. That shit isn't slowlng down either way
At least this reduces the amount of ways consumers are fucked by one
>>714676295>OverwatchWhat? Never shut down, they just stuck a 2 on the end of the name with one particularly big update.
>>714622916>>714622846 (OP)I literally don't give a shit.
Also,
>3. Erosion of Intellectual Property Rights: Mandating games companies to keep their online games operable post-official support would undermine their rights and autonomy in deciding how their intellectual property is utilised.GOOD. Yes, more of this please.
>>714677796>the average consumer would eventually learnyou 'avin a laff m8?
>>714678415What is the scam you're talking about exactly?
If you mean the shutting down after sale, that's what we're talking about making the games immune to, so scam gone
>>714677116Daddy government is what secures the righted for these companies to fuck you in the ass with IP rights you negro.
>>714677803We can just keep the current system without IP. How? Well, consumers engage in a fiduciary relationship with the developer/distributor in the act of purchase. This contractual relationship doesn’t rely on intellectual property for its subsistence, as can be observed with the vast majority of shit we purchase. That leads to the discussion regarding copyright specifically as that could potentially cause issues but that is solved by the Gaben conundrum (piracy is a service problem) or by simply tying copyright to digital objects instead of intellectual property.
>>714678656>This contractual relationship doesn’t rely on intellectual property for its subsistenceWhat? If there's no IP law then you can just get games for free from anywhere legally
>>714677293>Intellectual property allows things like games to be sold in the first placeWouldn't MORE people be able to make and sell games if intellectual property didn't exist?
>>714678793No, why would you think that?
>>714651110Pattern recognition.
>>714678525that is another problem.
the consumer thinks they want it because the consumer wants to avoid the consequences of their actions.
the companies dont want it because they want to force the next product harder.
but hilariously the consumer is harmed (goldfish for brains never learns) and the company benefits (consumer never learns, and its a form of "goodwill")
>>714678645the monetization scams that rely on fomo. shit like battlepasses, limited time premium content, and rotating shops.
you also wont keep your premium items after the game shuts down as that all is reliant on the company servers. what (you) will get a shitty server client that needs to be port forwarded and cant be directly connected to ingame.
>>714678814Think about all the small time developers that work on Nintendo fan projects that regularly get shut down, what if not only they were able to keep working but also to sell their games at full price?
>>714678991>the consumer is harmedPractically no, the only games that get shut down are the ones that don't get played anyway
This thing is entirely performative
>>714678991Entirely optional cosmetic junk? Not my idea of a 'scam'. Most people wave that away and would never drop actual cash on it.
>>714679058I suppose it means people can't create fan games, but it also means that people can sell their games
With no IP law you can't sell games, because they're worthless, you would need to rely on dontations
>>714678525Doesn't care/know about =/= doesn't want or even is opposed to it
>>714679131>With no IP law you can't sell games, because they're worthlessyou're retarded.
>>714679281With no IP law, the instant you release a game it will be taken and rereleased by someone with a bigger platform than you for cheaper than what you're charging. They will literally charge 1 cent for it. What will you do?
>>714678525>and developers don't want this bill,Who said that? This directly benefits them by removing consequence and convincing consumers that it's safe to buy because the government is protecting them.
>>714679395who's retarded here again?
>>714679357I'm willing to bet this anon is the same one who says
>people used to create just fine in the past!Ignoring the fact that creations often used to be one of a kind.
>>714679429you for not thinking to kill the people that wrong you.
>>714635905i already buy only from GOG, i still signed SKG and support it, the vote with your wallet argument does not work since some of the most exploitative games are targeted at children
>>714679502Murder is illegal and also the company that took your game can afford security. Now what?
>>714678740Read the rest of the post
>>714679502Survival of the strongest only serves the strongest, and you aren't the strongest
>>714679624IP exists because video games have no physical existence. There's no "digital object". Unless you want video games to be NFTs or something
ah do valve lose loads of money on counter striker because they provided dedicated server software?
genuine retardation. some kind of retard or jew behind this shit.
>>714679708The big corpo defence against SKG is going to be built on a bedrock of gaslighting
>>714679825and the beurocrats will eat it up
all politicians should hang, to be honest
>>714679684You know intellectual property didn't start with video games right?
>>714678991>the monetization scams that rely on fomo. shit like battlepasses, limited time premium content, and rotating shops.Then you ban those. Issue solved.
>>714679684Yes there is. There’s a thing that you download and play. It’s intangible but very much an object under the eyes of law.
If there was no object, there would be no contract and the entire industry wouldn’t exist.
>>714679825Pretty sure that's the tactic for skg.
>>714622846 (OP)Why the fuck is that paper written by an ESL? I love how ESL try to use a higher level vocabulary, but can't fucking fix their basic-ass grammar.
>>714680069>t very much an object under the eyes of law.It's not an object under the eyes of the law. Because it has no discrete existence. You can delete, move, copy it in the blink of an eye
>>714679612yeah thats where the shitpost ends.
realistically: reform the laws.
problem right now is that they allow big corpos to bully little guys too much by patenting the most retarded shit.
>>714680153>realistically: reform the laws.Into what?
>buy a coke
>drink it
>piss it out
>leftoids all over the world "NOOOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST TURN CORPORATE PRODUCT INTO PISS, THINK OF LE BRAND, THINK OF THE HARM YOU DO TO LE BRAND, WE NEED TO SUCK CORPORATE COCK BETTER!"
what exactly causes this behavior?
>>714680149Neither do a ton of services and more abstract obligations, yet they are seen as objects.
>>714680202ideally, a system where "happy birthday to you" cant be locked behind a license. but john gamedev's homebrewed fantasy setting and race can so that a large company cant steal it from him.
>>714680395In the current setting both of those things can be copyright, large companies cannot steal things from you
>>714680497... did you misread my post or are you just stupid?
How about we just slash the ludicrous duration of copyright from the pisstaking length it is now to something much shorter
Like what if it was something as low as 10 years
>>714680565Maybe I didn't understand your implication, but what you said is pretty close to how it works right now
happy birthday isn't copyright
>>714680704ok yeah you are retarded.
>>714680749Why don't you just clarify what you mean? Your ideal system is how it works right now
>>714653656>They've already been selling the product and you people have said that's not good enoughPatently false. Selling a product implies transfer of ownership. Reserving the right/option to take away the usability of the product is functionally identical to reclaiming it entire in the case of digital goods. So no, they haven't been selling the product, which is the whole fucking point. If a manufacturer retains full control over your ability to use something, then you didn't buy it, at best you rented it.
Just for fun: Replace games (or digital goods in general) with any other actual product you bought, and apply the scenario where the manufacturer unilaterally shuts down your ability to use that product with no recourse. Does that strike you as having bought a product? Do car manufacturers come and reclaim your vehicle when they decide to retire that model line? Do people from record labels come into your home and run a magnet over your CDs because the associated artist switched to another label and they lost the rights to those tracks?
>>714680661how about 1 year?
>>714680119>Why the fuck is that paper written by an ESL?Because believe it or not English isn't the main language of Europe. This organisation is actually German.
>>714680228Being demoralized and American, i.e. corporate whores whose entire identity revolves around brands, whether it be goods, services, phone manufacturers, politics, etc. No rational thought going on in those heads, no critical reflection, just MUST FOLLOW BRAND, MUST WORSHIP CORPORATION!
>>714680891Creators and inventors should still have a healthy amount of time to capitalize on their innovation and make their fortune
>>714680661>Like what if it was something as low as 10 yearsThen the industry would collapse outside of Nintendo since no one would be able to release a game before their copyright expires.
>>714622846 (OP)2. is laughable. Look at Halo Custom Edition, an abandoned game that has been on community life support for over a decade. The second Microsoft released a newer shiny version, Halo MCC, that was worse, everyone jumped on it because it had the official stamps all over it. No one except super diehards go out of the way to get the community version when there's an official version alongside it.
What's the current population comparison between Titanfall 2 official and that community server project that got together too?
Community supported servers don't happen until after the official devs have given up on a title anyway and no one was asking for community versions to be up on launch day, just that they're an option when the devs/publisher leave.
>>714680661personally: three years BUT it can be maintained as long as the original maker, being a tangible person instead of a corpo, of said copyright is still making original content with it.
for example if you've got a cartoon that goes on for four IRL years, you'd still have uncontested monetary control for three more years (for a total of seven)
if you use half the cast from that cartoon in another project, you'd maintain monetary control over that half of the cast but not the other.
shitting out merchandise will refresh the timer on the specific character, but not its associated setting or broader idea (like a fantasy race)
if you die, the copyright immediately goes public. it cannot be inherited or sold to someone or something else.
>>714681310>being a tangible person instead of a corpocompanies are made of people
>>714681310That's just evil
>>714681401yes, the person within that company that made the copyrighted idea owns it.
if the person is fired, they take monetary control over the concept with them.
>>714681475how so?
>>714623749>can't winAnon, the fact a lobby group IN Bruxelles, WITH a .eu website that tries suspiciously hard to look like it's a real government organ, chooses to acknowledge the existence of this instead of ignoring it means they think there's a very real chance this will affect change that doesn't benefit them. They're frankly shitting their pants in fear about this.
>>714681550>t means they think there's a very real chance this will affect change that doesn't benefit them. They're frankly shitting their pants in fear about this.this is cope
>>714677887You can't just amend a constitution!
>Reputational Harm
I agree. Someone could say the n-word on a dedicated server. I will gladly waive any right to own anything because of this danger.
>>714681606good morning sir
If a professional lobby group thought it was a nothing burger, they wouldn't waste resources fighting it.
>>714681521>how so?You're basically saying that no one can own anything unless they're working on on that one specific thing.
In other words, if they choose to work on something else and then return to that property after the alloted time they won't have any rights over it.
>>714649705heroes of newearth
>>714681794>waste resources fighting it.they literally wrote a two page document about it, that took an hour or two
>>714681310>>714681521oh yeah, and how this places into a company/hired creator relationship: similar to investment.
the company takes on the risk and funding for the copyright's proper realization so they "own" a portion of the revenue. but they cannot limit the creator to a hard cap, the amount the company earns from people with owned copyright is a % value, and the exact amount must be stated in a contract.
>>714681970yes but otherwise we have a problem of exact durations being too short or too long depending on how someone works.
suppose someone has a few valuable ideas they hold near and dear. and want to keep making with those for as long as they live, a copyright that isnt life long is no good.
but alternatively say that someone has an idea, makes something with it, and then drops it when they are done. a lifelong copyright for that would be ridiculous.
making it so that you maintain the copyright while you work is a nice middle ground. that solves both problems.
also, things in the public domain can still be monetized, but you have to compete with other people.
take the show example again.
you introduce a character in the first season, five years later you bring them back for the 6th season. you can still earn money from that character, but other people are allowed to use the character in their own works.
if you drop a game for three years and do nothing for it, yeah fuck you. compete with other people to prove that you're making the best iteration.
>>714681310Let's be honest, there's no real reason for copyright to change
It already regulates itself since people can't just coast on one idea since it would get stale forcing them to either make a sequel or new game entirely and other creators aren't creatively hindered.
>>714682413>they don't care about it>okay do they care but it doesn't count(you are here)
>>714682670they care about it but they don't see it as a threat
>>714682557>but alternatively say that someone has an idea, makes something with it, and then drops it when they are doneThen they should be free to sell or bequeath their property to whoever wants it, it shouldn't just be taken away from them for a completely arbitrary reason.
>>714682557>things in the public domain can still be monetizedNTA but trying to use anything in the public domain is basically worthless since big corporations already have a stranglehold on them.
>>714682787its not arbitrary. they abandoned the thing for a significant duration of time, so it went to the public domain.
>>714682731Lobbyists are far too expensive to waste on things they don't actually care about. But keep trying sir.
>>714682845Is it really?
Mythologies are in public domain and see use by indies and AAA pretty frequently.
>>714682845im aware.
but if you are the original maker of that concept, and still have the touch that made it popular, then it being in the public domain shouldnt matter much.
there are a few outcomes here but the thread is on death's door so i dont have the time to explain them.
so a tl;dr: if you cant reign attention back to your own doings with your popular IP after abandoning it for years on end, then someone else has outdone you in that time and thats simply the free market in action
This is easily debunked and already has been:
40 years went by where Video Games became a worldwide multi-billion-dollar industry without needing always-online.
There is no argument against it. Any made will be a bad faith hypothetical and not worth entertaining.