>Stop Killing Games
Why do people pretend that they want to save the slop from EA or Ubisoft?

Bump for discussion

>>714746347 (OP)
Cat

>>714750197
tranimal*

>>714746347 (OP)
cute cat

>>714746347 (OP)
if it hurts EA I'm on board, fuck that company with a rake

I don't care about their games, I care about restricting the freedom of these companies.

>>714750819
based, iidssm

>>714746347 (OP)
You don't understand what's the movement is about.

>>714751581
What is it about?

>>714746347 (OP)
Wouldn't it be funny if concord was still around as a constant reminder how to not make games?

Mr smug cat, a lot of children on /v/ need to feel like they're doing something. Being an "activist" for retarded online initiatives is how some worthless people like to pretend they have some worth.

There's no more to it, no normal person cares about dead slop that we always knew was going to die

>>714751581
I genuinely don't either. It would appear that people are trying to keep live service games online, and prevent companies from giving them a shelf life. But these are also games I loathe and despise. Games where I hate both the players and the developers. So... yeah, I can't really pick a side, feels like I have nothing to gain from caring about this.

Because people need to remember how dogshit their games are. Their mistakes must be preserved so future generations may learn from them.

>>714752323
>that people are trying to keep live service games online
Why is it so hard for you to understand what the initiative is all about?

>>714752414
You didn't read the rest of what I wrote. It's because I hate the games and the people who play and make the games that people are trying to preserve. Really, the people who play these games are lower than dirt.

>>714746347 (OP)
why are you so against it?
how does being against it benefit you?

>>714752504
That's fine. But you know damn well that if the industry had it their way, damn near every game in existence would be some live service nonsense they could pull the plug on whenever they felt like it. So why not help us draw the line in the sand and stop the practice from spreading, eh?

>>714752323
I do. Let me explain.
>It would appear that people are trying to keep live service games online
Not necessarily online. Releasing teh tools for community hosted servers is enough. The initiaive words it as a "playable state" and uses the word reasonable. Forcing the companies to run the servers forever is NOT reasonable.
Releasing server code so that the community can run their own servers IS reasonable.
>and prevent companies from giving them a shelf life
No. A minimum shelf life should however be disclosed beforehand and the above mentioned "sunsetting" is still necessary.

And it's not only about live service games. it's about ANY game that becomes unplaybe if a server connection isn't possible.

>>714752561
Probably likes dogshit games

>>714746347 (OP)
Are you fucking retarded or something? If a law gets passed any future game from any company would be protected.

>>714752609
I'd rather see the people that got gaming to this point actually suffer, i want to see them in pain and anguish for everything they've done to this scene. For the money they've given to these developers. Becomes pretty easy to do once you've spent a decade ignoring these products.

>>714752619
That's fair, but nothing I see the need to invest my energy in. Good luck I guess

>>714752747
Spite only gets you so far in affecting change in the world. Do you want video games to get a tiny bit better for everyone? Or do you just want to spend time wishing ill on people who won't ever think twice about taking a corporate assfucking?

>>714752323
Exactly what it isn't about and what people keep getting wrong. You can't force a company to keep servers running forever. But there needs to be an alternative, either allow people to host their own servers or disable backend dependency. Right now companies will kill a game and then sue anyone that tries to host own servers or tries to mod it into a single player game, just so they can force you to buy the inevitable remake

>>714752854
You cared enough to come in this thread to reply

>>714752854
You've spent more time and energy posting ITT than just signing it (it took me 20 seconds) if you're european. if not you can't do anything anyway.

>>714746347 (OP)
I want to save Gran Turismo.

>>714746347 (OP)
>why do I, an autistic person is having difficulty understanding that various people have different taste in things and they would like to preserve said taste

>>714752619
>The initiaive words it as a "playable state"
So let's say I am EA and I want to shut down Poorball 26 you eurocunts love so much.
I can comply with gamergate if I allow you to keep playing 1 map with bots after 10 years, no? I mean it is playable, just not the way you want it.

>>714753078
Dumb shit, we have talked about this before. It won't be applied to existing games.

>>714753139
But it would save Gran turismo 8.
Also Ubisoft already made an offline plan for The crew 2.

>>714753086
Having different taste is one thing, liking the Crew is another

>>714746347 (OP)
Why do retards pretend people shouldn't have proper rights of ownership and control over their property just because EA and Ubisoft make bad games?

>>714746347 (OP)
THEY SHOULD FEAR US

>>714753097
After a theoretical law/regulation is implemented, it would be up to courts to determine if individual games/companies are compliant or not. And what that would constitute would be different for every game. What you're describing sounds like malicious compliance, and I think the theoretical plaintiffs would have a very strong case against it. The company could get fined for tens or hundreds of millions.

>>714746347 (OP)
the opposite, it would kill the online-only service model
if companies would be required to keep their games playable 'forever'
but this will never pass, they will just require companies to disclose it
>"hurr durr its just a temporary service that can be terminated at any point, you own nothing, click to agree"

>>714753097
"The initiative does not seek to acquire ownership of said videogames, associated intellectual rights or monetization rights, neither does it expect the publisher to provide resources for the said videogame once they discontinue it while leaving it in a reasonably functional (playable) state."


It is for a judge to decide if
>allow you to keep playing 1 map with bots
is considered reasonably functional. But since these games are multiplayer games first and foremost, EA would have to guarantee online play on their servers or enable the community to host their own. So I'd say no, these types of copouts would probably be challenged infront to the European Court and then EA had to pay fines if a law ever goes through. The companies are probably just going the easy way of releasing the server netcode and shit instead of trying a weird stipped down version and keeping that online.

>>714753257
/thread forever
a rational anon, I feel like I traveled back to 2008

>>714753453
There are still a few of us hanging around... why, I don't know.

The fact there's so much controlled opposition about it shows they're scared.

>>714753257
sorry, what property? its a service

>>714753586
Oh, okay. Then when, exactly, does the service end?

This is a precursor for a law that makes companies unable to force customers to buy new equipment when they stop online support for their old stuff.

>>714753629
they can put anything in the ULA like "you get guaranteed 12 months of service! plus any extended period totally for free (but not guaranteed)"
this might be required if any legislation passes but they will always have an excuse of "its not a product its a service"

>>714746347 (OP)
Why do troons always go straight for sucking off corporations?

>>714753350
>the opposite, it would kill the online-only service model
It wouldn't. This only involves what happens to the game once the company kills it. They are free to run their online-only game as they please, but when they shut their servers down the game has to remain playable in some way (like being patched to work offline, or the company providing the dedicated server tools for the player community to use).

>hurr durr its just a temporary service that can be terminated at any point, you own nothing, click to agree
You can't "agree" your rights away if the law protects them, which is exactly the point of the initiative, to make a law so these companies can no longer fuck people over. Pretty sure the EU already treats digital games as goods being sold, some company can't type some shit in their EULA and invalidate the law.

>>714752323
well imagine concord with no online functionality but just bots running around. thats the point. gaas sloppers dont get a free pass. if you make a game and I pay for it you cant take it away.

>>714754008
you dont have any rights to the software itself be it game or the backend software to run your own servers - this will never be passed in a law, they will only require companies to be more transparent
that its a service and you are paying for non-exclusive temporal access to the service, not something you can "own" and keep using forever

>>714753874
Guaranteeing 12 months to all purchasers would be pretty awesome for SKG, actually. They'd literally have to take the game off sale for an entire year before they pull the plug. If that doesn't wake people the fuck up, nothing will.

>>714746347 (OP)
It would kill that slop from EA and Ubisoft and that's a good thing. I love how this argument is supposed to be the shills' killer argument when in reality it only motivates more people to sign up.
Games like Concord wouldn't have been made if Sony was aware of the risks of having to support a game and do right by their customers, they lost a shitload of money but they will inevitably get that all back within a gen or two like nothing happened. Their customers are shiteaters who don't deserve it, but at least it hurts the incentive to pump out this crap.

As for any actually good game people like, add a fucking server browser. It can't be that hard if games from 25 years ago had it. The reason they don't want to do this is because they like being able to flip a switch that stops customers from using the product they bought. They want to stop wrongthink, push users on to newer games while turning off old ones, and manipulating people. Imagine if this same line of thinking was applied to physical goods:
>Oh no! My car won't start because the company pulled support! Guess if I have to buy a new one now!
>My smartphone just bricked itself because the AI assistant caught me saying the nigger word! I'm now banned from all of their services and have to make a new account to rebuy this same smartphone again!
>The TV won't even turn on because I was watching transphobic videos! I guess I have to rebuy my whole TV again now.
Private servers would stop that for digital goods. Companies would only have autonomy over their servers, which is a objectively good thing.
Also less glowie spyware.

>>714753586
And that's a good thing because? If you wanna keep the licensing model (which would be dumb), then I want steam to openly display that it's a rental service and I want a minimum support duration in big red letters next to every game.

>>714754008
That may be what SKG wants but the EU can decide that server monopolies are bad and all new multiplayer games be required to allow alternative servers, just like smart phones have to allow alternative app stores.

>>714754471
Maybe license models for games should be banned then? If a car manufacturer told you that they can brick your car for no reason at all at any time because they switched to a licensing model, people would freak out. But gamers are so used to eating dicks that they don't even question it.

They don't like that. They want to have their cake and eat it, too. So anything that hurts them, in turn, makes me happy

>>714757614
Already being done.

>>714750197
*kot

>>714752504
>You didn't read the rest of what I wrote.
You didn't read anything of what the initiative has on its page. You just tried to absorb what it is about via post osmosis.

>>714758406
tldr

>>714750819
you're pretty cool

Why fo they Iove corporations so much?

>>714752747
nah you're just a corporate shill
fuck off back you giant faggot

>>714761563
americans are brainwashed from birth to hate freedom, love merchandise and worship abusing kids
who fucking knows how to save them man

>>714746347 (OP)
maybe we want to wreck them a bit for all the bad deeds?

>>714746347 (OP)
Out of principle. I don't play any of these games, I don't care for any of them. But there theoretically could be a game that that I like that ends up being killed because the devs decided to make it impossible to play without accessing their servers.

>>714761765
Why are they so inconsistent? All about freedom this, don't tread on me that, not wanting to be shackled by oppressive regimes and governments, that's all good and commendable; but then they fellate the boots of an almost the same gigantic powerful entity just because it has the word Limited or Incorporated in its name.

>>714761339
retard

>>714746347 (OP)
It's the principle of it. Sure, most of server based games are shite that no one plays, but it's a bad precedent

>>714752247
You do that isn't a cat you're replying to in real life, right? Cats can't post on 4chan or use the computer.

4chan has been contrarian for decades. if some significant amount of people here say they want thing X and threads about it appear consistently, some proportion of people will spontaneously appear championing thing -X, no matter how utterly retarded it is.

>>714762286
I think this behaviour might be genetic. Maybe at some point in history it was advantageous to have some people in your tribe who are prone to contrarianism.

>>714762286
you're wrong though

Would be nice gacha games turn into single purchase DRM-free games with no gacha elements after they EOS.

>>714746347 (OP)
/v/edditards are hypocrites.

>>714763391
They'll just withdraw from the European market.

>>714763469
good

>>714763816
>having less games to play is good
Europoor mentality

>>714753350
>the opposite, it would kill the online-only service model
If only, mashallah.

>>714763391
>trip
Opinion discarded

>>714746347 (OP)
Because this has ramifications into other industries. Imagine needing your car to be connected to a server to start and having to buy a new car once they shut down the server. May sound surreal but there are already car features that have online DRM.

>>714746347 (OP)
They never properly addressed this. A lot of games deaerve to die and stay dead. It's the core problem with their petition on Top of Ross not actually doing any of the legal work because he just expects someone else to do everything for him

>>714763391
Gachatrash is F2P, won't be affected. That said, I remember some gacha that allowed you to see your collection offline after it EOS'd.

Actually you have it the other way around, I want ubisoft and EA to lose money so they die and gaming is saved.

>warner brothers cancels and completely takes a series down from their streaming app
HOW COULD THIS BE? THEYRE EVIL, I ENJOYED THAT SHOW AND NOW ITS LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO WATCH IT
>ubisoft cancels and takes down one of their racing games
so? its expensive to host games, gamedevs will suffer and be poor if they cant do this or something along those lines, also it didnt sell so its okay

(the same people say this, and no i wont be providing proof because i take it down because it was too expensive, feels bad when it happens to you doesnt it?)

>>714746347 (OP)
>aryanimal
stray

>>714763469
>EU whales getting their $20000 accounts deleted
It would be funny as fuck

>>714770658
>the same people say this
Name 5

>>714770817
Chris, David, Bill, Alexander and Patrick

>>714770758
The accounts wouldn't be deleted but you'd no longer be able to download the apps from the local stores.

"Stop Killing Game" law passes, game gets killed, take your pick:

>"Offline mode" patch, limited time/seasonal events are always available and/or based on your system clock
>Company give tools to run a private server
>Forced, at gunpoint, to keep the game online in perpetuity

being an adult is realising piratesoftware was right all along
trannies just dogpile him ever since he got smeared in the wow fiasco, even tyler1 was on his side initially

>>714746347 (OP)
I think most people just wanted PS to lose.

>>714769461
>Gachatrash is F2P, won't be affected.
Actually gachas are more likely to be affected than subscription MMOs are, since the purchases you make in them are goods, and this is one of the central issues - Goods being sold as "services" so that they can be taken away from you at an undisclosed later date.

>>714773042
I choose 1 and/or 2 for games I like and 3 for the slop that ubishit, EA, shit enix, WB games etc churn out.

>>714773129
>even tyler1
anon...

>>714752323
Even if you personally think the games are shit, if they get made, they should still not be made unplayable and people who bought them should still have a right to access them

Also, if the fearmongering from skeptics about the campaign is right and it does make developing live service shit costlier, then it succeeding will make those games less likely anyways

So it's a win-win for you

>>714770745
based

>>714746347 (OP)
>>714747891
Lonely toxotranny thread

>>714778131
you think you're free?
the parasite made you bump this thread