Thread 714943012

Maybe we shouldn't have let low IQ people with no experience with programming or game development try to tell publishers what to do.

They mean that they will make less money. That is the expensive part.

>>714943012 (OP)
don't worry, EU citizens tax dollars will pay for this
but at least we'll be able to play shitty ubislop games foreverially

>>714943012 (OP)
i don't know why SKGfags are dishonest cultists. they will tell you with a straight face that is actually saves money

Literally nothing is going to come off this. The ABSOLUTE BEST CASE SCENARIO is just that publishers are required to more clearly disclose that you will just be renting a license and that you own nothing (and will be happy)

>>714943012 (OP)
>Just release dedicated server software which was the standard back when games generally had much less bloated budgets than today
>Don't release patches that disable features when your product reaches EoL
The publishers are running the copiates on full blast I see.

shalom

>>714943012 (OP)
Not my problem
Maybe hire less, and/or retain your talent instead of burning through thousands of employees worldwide?

>>714943012 (OP)
>major publishers insist
>publishers

"prohibitively expensive" is the AAA publically traded company making like, 1% less than their quarterly forecast
we can make it more efficient for them by forcing them to plan for it by law so it must be baked into the cost of the vidya

>>714943012 (OP)
>you don't understand! letting you host servers like it was the norm in the 90 to mid 00 is just too expensive for us even though we already progranned the software and just have to release it!
This is just such a sad and transparent lie.

major publishers are liars

Games shouldn't be made for profit.

>>714943110
The point isn't saving money, the point is letting the consumer have what he paid for

>>714943012 (OP)
That's what /v/ does all the time

>>714943146
That's all I'm hoping for. I want it clearly stated that said game has a shelf life and will be discontinued, with no option to access the data after a set number of years or months... again, CLEARLY STATE WITH EXACT DATE AND TIME. Zero ambiguity or estimation.

>>714943012 (OP)
>release a "how to" documentation on the internet that teaches people how to play their games offline or make a server
>"wah that will cost us billions of dollarinos. it's impossible"

>>714943012 (OP)
Still not as retarded as forcing popups about accepting cookies on every single website.

>>714943012 (OP)
>low IQ people with no experience with programming or game development
You just described the publishers

reminder that the crux of the issue is that they don't want you to still be playing your games years later
they don't want games like neverwinter nights, doom, half-life etc that people are still fucking playing 20 years later to exist
that's the point of this
you are to consume the latest product

>>714943940
No shit.
First they dropped LAN mode, then dedicated servers. It's so they can flip a switch and force you to migrate to their current slop with new ingame purchases.

>>714943012 (OP)
They'd have to actually try to win new players over from old games with quality rather than force. The fucking horror.

>>714943418
Can confirm. In fact I'm on a team that resurrected a hero shooter that died in 2023 after launching in 2022. Live service, no dedicated server hosting released. Team was retarded enough to bake the game server code into the client so we just turned the client into a server.

>>714943940
Yes, we fucking know that. And as a fan of video games, it infuriates me that the only gamws from this era that I will be playing in 20 years are indie titles that someone developed in their bedroom. It's not fair.

>>714943418
>>714943419
>>714943586
>>714944607
Reminder that none of these arguments will matter unless they are presented in a digestible way to politicians. You need an actual document.

Oh no, not 0.000001% of the total revenue!
Kys corposhill.

Lotta anti shilling about this in the last few days, this is the only time you street shitters get a (You) from me

>>714943012 (OP)
>The economy simply can't function without slaves
>Statement by the Slave Owners Association

I have a suggestion, how about taking it out of the CEOs bonus? That ought to fix it.

>>714943146
Stating "this game will disappear in 2 years and you won't be able to play it anymore" on boxes of a 70 shekel product will hurt sales. They're more likely to provide an offline patch.

Never forget.

>>714944914
This, that or the studio my choose not to make a live service game.

>>714944779
Just draw a picture of a black dick on paper and pass it around. Politicians will understand it just fine.

Shills can bitch all they want, but if this initiative accomplishes one thing it will be to raise awareness about the anti-consumer nature of live-service games.
Even if all that happens is the EU says "lol" and live-service sales drop by 10% it's still a win, just a small one. There was never any downside to trying to make things better.

>>714943110
>they will tell you with a straight face that is actually saves money
This anti-shilling is so fucking retarded.

>>714945128
it will raise questions about the nature of digital ownership in general, which is why they don't want it to succeed
they do not want people calling attention to the fact that you don't own shit even though the storefronts say "buy"
not your games, not your movies, not your music
it's all just indefinite renting that can be revoked at any time for any reason

>>714943012 (OP)
Maybe we shouldn't just believe corporations.

>>714943146
I’m ok with this. Let’s me know which games to avoid.

This whole thing has been rather redpilling for me. I actually read the Manifesto today

>>714945128
Yeah they don't want people even talking about this. The fucking chutzpah to just take away a $70 product literally a day after you bought it (The Crew was selling to the last day) without any warning or explanation is fucking diabolical. NO other medium allows for this. Not in music and not in movies. Only vidya was this unlawful wild west of corporate kikery because nobody paid attention to the new medium.

>>714943146
If no long-term solution comes from this then I want them to do what they forced cigarette companies to do. One big black bar on top of the cover saying "THIS GAME WILL NO LONGER BE PLAYABLE ONCE SERVICE IS SHUT DOWN" and then random graphic pictures like a child crying and a server burning down or something. See how long it would take for them to add an offline version or dedicated servers.

>>714943012 (OP)
Having honest business practices if "prohibitively expensive"? A lot of games don't need to change a goddamn thing. In fact, that's most games.

>>714945640
That was an unbelievable move on Ubisoft's part.
>This game is going to be unplayable in the next month. Buy it now for 90% discount!

>>714943012 (OP)
not my problem

>>714943012 (OP)
>People being regulated to do something they don't want to do assure us that it's too expensive to do it

It's really funny how 90% of the time that this is said when the thing happens nothing bad happens and the company continues like normal. Like how Apple said being forced to use USB-C was going to kill it's ability to innovate but they are still extremely successful, or how net neutrality was going to kill small businesses but it didn't.

The Ross Man says that this is only the beginning and that the lobbying work starts now. Help me write a thing to get started.
>https://wesmania.github.io/game-life-report/

>>714943012 (OP)
>like Apple screaming that iPhones will increase in price
>or google and Amazon that they won't sell in the EU anymore
In the end it was all just fucking lies and all of them caved in.

>>714945717
I think this is a reasonable solution. Companies can continue to make disposable media, and consumers will have vitally important information on the product.

>>714943012 (OP)
I agree, maybe we shouldn’t let low iq people misunderstand a simple thing by starting to spin it into something it’s not

>>714943012 (OP)
Maybe publishers should've continued to add LAN MP and release dedicated servers for their games, that way this wouldn't have been necessary in the first place :)

>>714943418
>work as codemonkey
>have to do shit on our online platform
>have to work on the offline version
Every fucking online game has to have an offline version in the office since debugging would be simply impossible otherwise. Them claiming that it's impossible or some major fucking work is such a transparent lie to everyone who ever did work on one it's mindboggling.
Fucking Genshin Impact has a fan made offline version.

>>714946190
No it doesn’t you retard
Stop making up shit, you faggots are unbelievable

>>714943012 (OP)
Just require developers to make the tools necessary to host private servers available when they no longer want to support the game.
It's that simple, the claim it's "prohibitively expensive" is a lie and anyone claiming such here is a shillbot.

>>714946184
Right?!

This would never have occured if they just let us use dedicated servers! But these fucking weirdos just had to have their fucking matchmaking bullshit!

>>714946262
Ignore that, I suck dicks and only read your greentext

>>714944607
What game?

>>714946308
It's okay, it happens.

>>714944945
Most people who signed will hit a wall really hard when this reaches the discussion part at the parliment. You can fart on the microphone when you talk to the nobodies on the internet but when you bring the argument of "just remove it from the ceo bonus :^)" to the table in an official discussion the whole room will just laugh at the consumers. I dont understand why we dont have people trained in legaleeze be our representatives...why does ross continue to use the same fucking stupid analogies that you can use in a casual discussion but can be refuted with "lol no, you have no idea what u are talking about" by being who are "qualified" to say so.

I dont get one thing, there is literally money to be made here, but corpos only care about line must go up this seccond! But consider this, lets take the crew as an example
>Make already existing offline mode in the Crew playable
>give community small amount of toolset to mess a bit with the game
>The crew first trailer has over 35 million views, there is a lot of people who still want to play first game
>community starts to make mods and modes that devs didn't thought off
>still sell the game with offline patch, with bigg letter that the game doenst suport features it once had
>car culture is still very strong, and community expands your "dead" game to the point of wanting The crew 3
>now you can extrapolate ideas and mods and feature for the next game literally for free
I dont get it why they are not doing this, its such a simple way to still earn money, not have servers running, and have a free benchmark to see what your player base wants.

>>714946554
Correct me if I'm wrong but Ross isn't going to be asked to speak in front of the EU on this. Once this officially passes it's up to the EU members to discuss between themselves.

>>714946634
Compare skyrim current player count to starfield current player count and there is your answer.

>>714943012 (OP)
>noooo! you need to be a developer to be able to tell if game is a shit money scam!
>it's not because we wont be able to scam customers(no longer players or gamers) anymore!

>>714946331
Gundam Evolution

>>714944779
> me buy car in cash
> 1 year later, company say "we no want you have car no more"
> wake up next day
> me no have car
> me no have money back either
Car analogies help boomers.

>>714946927
What does that have to do with anything? Those games aren't even in the same series, plus people are still playing the old one. I don't understand your point at all.

>>714946262
it's true you faggot retard
even if not for debug, a dev have offline build
do you fucking think that everyone have their own instance on a single online version?
They would constantly force-crash each other you fucking faggot, an control vesrsion admin would hang itself if he needed to push new version and somehow cut off updates from people that crash shit or those who didn't updated anything because of a sick leave

>>714943012 (OP)
Game developers in 2025 are, on average, the lowest IQ individuals in society. Worthless incompetent retards that are standing on the shoulders of those who came before them.

>>714946927
But that's exactly my point, If Starfield was killed by online dependency its gone, there would be no player count. Now due time people will make more and more mods, at some point one youtuber video and whole perception of the game would change and o a dime, now you have lot of people pouring in to play Starfield (I dont have to say No mans sky, or starsector). And if you would want to make starfield 2 you have a huge list of features that are the most popular. But once you kill the game there is nothing.

>>714946834
No, he will not. There are other people, the ones who contacted Ross when he asked for help, which will talk about this. People who as far as i know are " concerned citizens" and not legal experts or even people who do these kinds of presentations. Why can't he hire a person qualified for customer protection from any countries from the Union.

>>714946834
they will ask him what tf is this about to be completely sure
you have whole process on EU website described, then they'll hear both sides, experts on topic and consultants with lawmakers to write a proper paper

>>714946634
That's kind of what's going against the devs here. They're blatantly misunderstanding the petition. Voices like PirateSoftware might have accidentally convinced them that it's something it's not, and salted the initiative. Truth is that most companies don't need to do a thing if this passes, and the ones that do are being dishonest about the cost. Nobody is telling anyone to indefinitely support servers.

What has me worried is the focus on angles besides the license ownership angle. It could turn a slam-dunk into a painful struggle. Law initiatives are an area where maximalist goals don't always pay off.

Even Suicide squad released a offline patch with the last update

>>714947121
Nobody is playing starfield because starfield sucks and they don't have the talent to capitalize on a mountain of skyrim mods to determine what people want, the only way they could get those players to move over from skyrim is by taking skyrim away from them (or hiring talented developers but that would cost more than indians).

>>714946834
You can watch debates on past topics if you have questions how things work
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRAox7qXWiM

>>714947221
This is how it will be presented to the commission and it will work because they have used the same shitty point from the start as a counterargument to the dev point from the beginning:"It didn't work this way before". Ross and his team have been given a year worth of time to find better arguments against this and they didn't find anything better to say. I really really hope that behind closed doors they are brainstorming about this

>>714947279
Even Crew 2 released an offline mode. The industry saw this initiative and realized the jig was up.

>>714943012 (OP)
Not my fucking problem.
I WILL own my games and i will be happy.

>>714947510
I'll give a better link. https://audiovisual.ec.europa.eu/en/video/I-182755
Here's a longer debate, with translations available.

>>714943012 (OP)
Everything is expensive if it doesn't rise CEO's salary or the stock value, it's not the customers' problem

>>714947404
Or by making the next game in the game series Skyrim is in. Skyrim is a PS3 game, and to date there is no other mainline entry in TES franchise, just a shitty MMO.

>>714946972
>that pic
What is to be done about the bot spam on 4chan and every other major social media site other than ending online anonymity on the platforms?
I know that's what the powers that be want but I struggle to think of any other option to reverse the dead internet phenomenon.

>>714943012 (OP)
well yeah, the 50 cents they spend on preserving video games could've gone to something more useful. Like the CEOs new yacht

>>714943012 (OP)
This whole campaign went to nothingburger

>>714946834
He has a representative who is the one who officially submitted the Initiative. The EU Commission will do a lot of investigating on their own, but they will for sure interview the rep. It's also possible that Ross may make a more "official" video that could be presented to the Commission.

>>714947584
Ross has certainly been taking this more seriously than I originally thought he would. I certainly expect that he's already worked out someone to talk to the EU members who can do a good job presenting the issue.

>>714943012 (OP)
Releasing the source code for the server client is free, you just have to do it if you don't want to host the server any longer.

>>714943012 (OP)
>5$ are too expensive for game publishers
not our problem.

>>714943012 (OP)
>Letting users run servers is more expensive than running the servers

>>714943104
pay for what?

>>714947909
Expectations will only bring ruin. I demand to know the qualifications of the person who will represent my interests

>>714948070
they'll pay for the EU protecting their right to own things, pay up sheeple

>>714948030
>"just make it able to run on private servers"
>"large scale games weren't made with private servers in mind for more than a decade. that's gonna take a lot of time, effort, and money"
>"I DONT CARE GIBS ME FREEE!!!11!!!"

and you wonder why you're losing?

>>714947785
>ending online anonymity
Has that worked for facezuck?
It's arguably not that severe on 4chan anyway; the userbase is just deranged to fuck.

>>714948251
bad bot

>>714944607
>>714946986
Based. Didn't know about this. Jap tech illiteracy finally being used for good.

>>714946190
I hadn't considered that. Would it be as simple as releasing that version publicly?

>>714948265
I think the severity is worse than you think but varies highly by board.
Keep in mind Facebook doesn't have strong identity verification and those are the type of systems I'm talking about, not just email and/or phone numbers.

>>714948251
Explain private WoW servers
Also
>what is p2p

>>714948251
They should be forced to release the schematics for their super special servers that are fundamentally different from publicly known ones too.

>>714946986
That was the Gundam Overwatch game, right? Kinda crazy that it's already dead, I remember seeing the trailers before it came out.

>>714948251
Every single one of multiplayer games, no matter how "big" are made in small studio environment, they need to test is debug it etc. very often they just run local server on a fucking laptops.

>>714948251
>N-no, we put our games are super secret special server technology. We could never simply release this, it would never run on a computer
>Why are all our servers crashing on intel 13000k series chips? N-not that we would ever run multiple server instances on such a consumer chip, because then that would mean we were fucking lying.

Afraid? Good.

>>714948329
Literally, no, but basically yes. In an ideal world, they'd clean their internal server build up a little bit to be end-user friendly first.
But even if they "just released it" in the literal sense it would still be better than letting the game die. At least a few fans would be able to figure out how to properly host and would hopefully spread the knowledge or fix the build themselves.

>>714948030
its more expensive in the long run when you consider ''lost potential revenue''
>keeping games alive past a certain date
that means less people will be forced to buy the new game if they want more
>community moderating the servers
that wont look good for the company, if we dont tell people whats right and wrong we dont get good press
>people running modded servers
people making mods and having their own fun means less people buying MTX and being part of the FOMO economy

>>714948251
i dont care
do it or you'll get a gorillion dollar monthly fine

>>714948362
Private wow servers are a thing because
1. They leaked something the early days of the game
2. Blizzard didn't take much action
3. The infrastructure of the game is different from what they do nowadays, thats why addons are still a thing because there is stuff still being done locally
>>714948489
They were allowed to walk away with the kinder argument..i don't think they are afraid at all>>714948489

>>714948251
>>"that's gonna take a lot of time, effort, and money"
Yeah, on your part, not mine.
Now get to work, chop chop.

>>714948251
do you realize that every online game ever made HAS to have a private server framework. it's not even a formal requirement or something it's just a part of the process. it's like if a car manufacturer said that it's too expensive to make brakes, nigga you make the brakes when you make the fucking car what do you mean it's too expensive.

>>714948559
Then developers should make the games actually fucking good and add new things so there's incentive to buy the new ones instead of people only doing it because they're forced to.

>>714947134
No one has said anything about making an offline build for games you disingenuous fuck
Stop spreading misinfo about SGK

>>714948629
No.

>>714948626
>3. The infrastructure of the game is different from what they do nowadays
Is that why DDO private servers are a thing?
Poor, poor lost shill. You lost, lost shill.

>>714948251
losing what?

>>714943012 (OP)
Fuck publishers. They are a cancer on video games. They dont make games they only tell people who make games to make them more shitty.


I want a return of golden age of dedicated servers.

>>714943012 (OP)
May allah destroy all the shills in this thread

>>714943012 (OP)
>Maybe we shouldn't have let low IQ people with no experience with programming or game development try to tell publishers what to do.
Anon those are shareholders. You can't talk to them that way. :^)

>>714948489
>Americans wernt allowed to vote for the petition
>But American companies are allowed to lobby against it
this democracy sure works funny doesnt it

>>714948773
>Americans should be able to vote on EU law because international organizations operate in the EU

Are you stupid?

>>714948648
>Then developers should make the games actually fucking good and add new things so there's incentive to buy the new ones instead of people only doing it because they're forced to
how fucking DARE you say something so transphobic, so ableist and most of all, so anti semetic

>>714943012 (OP)
Seeing /v/ become the game publisher's mightiest warrior this month is one the saddest and cucksoomer mindsets this site has ever seen. You cunts have gone so soft.

>>714948823
>American and japoid companies should be able to lobby against the citizens of EU

>>714948626
>private wow servers were a thing because they had the resources accessible to them to make them a thing
Are you just arguing like a retard on purpose? The shills don't need your help.

>>714948773
Americans snuff out communism. Just what we do.

>>714948840
Is this a bot reply or what

>>714948874
Yes. USA is the protective umbrella of the EU and the only reason it exists.

>>714948848
The problem is that it's infested with mites. It has been for a long time.
Instead of being 1% genuine retards it's now 80% retards and 19% bots.

>>714948773
To be fair those are likely the european branches of their respective companies. Since they operate in Europe they have a say in it.

>>714948848
/v/ is literally a corpo hell now
we have literal sales generals going on every week for Nintendo, people talk about Sony as if they are shareholders
People cheering on the death of piracy, the death of emulation, it just doesnt feel real
at this point i dont believe anyone left here is sane anymore and that includes me

>games become $80
>get told to suck it up
>tell them to let us keep our games
>NOOOOO WE CAN'T AFFORD THAT

>>714948940
Highly ironic, care to take a guess who colonized America and founded USA?

>>714949003
Not the EU?

>>714948848
I just assume it's legit paid shills considering they only started after that lobby group was formed.

>>714943146
>Now they need to tell you when the game is closing or the fact that you are not buying a game at all, only a license
Good way to avoid giving them money

>>714948848
Surprising eh

>>714948981
>don't own game for $60 + $10 + $20 + $40 + $40
seems good to me
>Own game for $80
NOOOOOOOOOOOO

>>714943012 (OP)
Fuck off nigger. If they can't afford to make an end of service plan they can either stop making liveservice slop or die. Who fucking cares, the industry needs a hard reboot anyways.

>>714948883
i thought your sens of smell eroded after 50 years of red 40 abuse and leaded paint?

>>714949028
Not European countries?

>>714948874
>International organizations

I repeat, are you fucking stupid? These companies operate in the EU, meaning they have branches in the EU, meaning regardless of where the headquarters is they are still partially European companies. Jesus Christ how far gone are we as a society if shit this basic has to be explained to you.

>>714948981
By all means, make them $500 if you want. See how that works out for you.

>>714948654
the argument has nothing to do with SKG even dumb faggot

>>714949137
No, no, I agree completely.
Americans who play European games should be able to sign the petition.

>>714949003
Thats not irony. Irony would be decolonizing ourselves and ruling over you after previously being slaves to your now worthless crown.

>>714949191
It's not a petition. It's a citizens initiative. Americans are not European citizens. The entire purpose of this is to create EU law. Americans don't get any say in creating EU law because they are not European.

>>714949102
Snuff is a word that has nothing to do with smell.

This is never going to pass
You aren't entitled to own a movie forever after you buy a movie ticket
Games as a limited time service are no different

>>714945070
I liked your post more when I misread it and thought you said "blank check"

>>714949251
>It's a citizens initiative
>CITIZEN'S initiative
>corpos are able to lobby against it
Heh.

>>714949309
False equivalence
Get better material Kabir

>>714949309
>You aren't entitled to own a movie forever after you buy a movie ticket
What about a movie on a dvd?

>>714949325
Who works at corporations?

>>714943110
It does actually.

Retard, all of you
https://store.steampowered.com/app/2183650/MEGA_MAN_X_DiVE_Offline/

>>714949356
>False equivalence
how? whats the difference?

>>714949406
Drones.

>>714949309
Under EU law I am in fact entitled to a movie forever if I were to, say, buy it on DVD.

>>714949421
A movie ticket shows the runtime.

>>714949462
Just don't say nigger or the disc will brick your house.

>>714949480
So if a game purchase showed you the runtime it would then be ok to sell limited time access games?

>>714949525
Yes.

>>714949103
The London Company, the Plymouth Company, The Dutch West India Company, the Ohio Company, Massachusetts Bay Company, etc. I'm not listing a wall of companies.
These don't seem like countries to me.

>>714949569
Well that's not what SKG says, SKG says that when a game ends it has to be made playable to whoever bought it regardless

>>714949525
Yeah, if you told me when the service ends, you can say a game is a subscription to a service.

>Unfair Contract Terms Directive (93/13/EEC): A term is unfair if it causes a "significant imbalance" between the parties’ rights and obligations, contrary to "good faith," and to the consumer’s detriment. Courts assess this against what a reasonable consumer might expect.
>Digital Content Directive (2019/770): Effective from January 1, 2022, this requires digital content (e.g., video games) to conform to the contract and remain functional for a "reasonable period" unless otherwise agreed. It builds on 93/13/EEC by setting specific consumer rights.

>>714949525
Only if the runtime is clearly advertised, which it wont be. It'll be somewhere within a 50000 page eula that coerces you into giving up your right to your software after you purchased it.

>>714949613
Only if it's classified as a good. Which, for the record, the vast, vast, vast majority of games ARE sold as goods. The whole problem is that the publishers want the benefits of games being services despite selling them as goods.

>>714949734
what classifies something as a good? why is a movie ticket not a good but a game purchase is?

>>714949309
No, but they can't just pry the 35mm theatrical print from you if you buy that (based on the Monkhouse ruling)

>>714949760
Because the movie ticket comes with reasonable expectations. If you were buying game tickets, it wouldn't be the same, would it?
The law expects you to be a reasonable person. That's the same in the US as most EU countries. They won't take arguing for the sake of arguing in court.

>>714949860
So it's a wording issue? They just need to call them game tickets and then it would be ok?

>>714949901
Oh please, do that, there's no possible way it'd bite them in the ass
>ummm for 70 bucks you can buy this game ticket, tee-hee
>hey, where are you going??

>>714949901
Yes. Once they do, customers will be informed enough to make a decision.

>>714949901
Yes. You realize it's more advantageous to just sell the game as a game and do almost trivial actions to conform? Your argument isn't as poignant as you seem to think it is.

>>714949760
Because the ticket (i.e. the paper that it's printed on) is not literally what you're buying. The ticket is a receipt. You're buying the right to see a specific showing of a film that last for a specific period of time. A service.

Games could sell themselves that way. Bungie could choose to sell Destiny 3 with big fat text on its store page that says "$60 FOR 2 YEAR ACCESS!" That would be completely fair to anyone who buys it, as they know exactly when their opportunity to play the game will end.

>>714949962
Game publishers would rather change the wording than change their business model

>>714950003
You've created a fantasy where publishers have to change their business model. It's borderline trivial to conform. It's harder to NOT conform.

>>714943012 (OP)
I hate the kind of games that are incompatible with SKG. Therefore I welcome SKG to do its best to make sure they never come into existence. It's not difficult to make a game function offline. If the concern is that your 15 year old unsupported game staying available eats into your present day profits, perhaps your game studio is worthless and should be bankrupt.

>>714943012 (OP)
Maybe you shouldn't have let low IQ people with no experience with programming or game development try to scam us with shit video games?

>>714950003
Changing just their wording in a way that would be SKG-compliant would hurt their profits WAY more than simply fucking complying. Buyers are inherently wary of subscriptions. It's way harder to string a million people along for 6 months of a $10 monthly sub than it is to simply sell a million copies of a $60 game out the gate.

>>714943012 (OP)
The absolute chutzpah of these goyim!

>>714943012 (OP)
Low-iq post.

>>714950064
If you make game publishers provide the means to continue playing a game after they've ended the service then yes, you are changing their business model
They'd choose to change the wording over changing their business model, obviously
They'd choose to change the wording even if limited time service WASN'T their business model because it's still easier than the alternative

>>714950003
Ok, do it. See how that works out for you.

>>714950130
>Changing just their wording in a way that would be SKG-compliant would hurt their profits WAY more than simply fucking complying
That depends on what the rules for wording were, but no, not likely, buyers have no problem with subscriptions

>>714949191
If they have dual citizenship then americans could sign it. That's the basic idea behind those multinational companies in the lobby group. Those companies have offices in the EU and therefore can fuck shit up for the rest of us if they so wish.

>>714950172
>They'd choose to change the wording over changing their business model, obviously
see
>>714950198

Playing chicken with corpos is fun.

>>714950269
I'm not a corporation you fucking retard

>>714949525
Yes, that is quite literally exactly what the incentive is asking for. If a game is inherently ephemeral like an MMO, you're paying for a subscription that lasts a determined and clearly communicated amount of time.
You are a complete fucking retard

>>714949613
No it doesn't. You should actually do some basic research on the thing you're talking about before making an ass out of yourself like this

>>714950282
You sure speak a lot for them.

>>714943146
If nothing is going to come off this, why are you so afraid?

>>714949309
>buy a movie ticket
>"the movie will last 170 minutes"
>buy a public transport pass
>"the pass will last exactly a month"
>reserve a table at a restaurant
>"your table will be available for 2 hours"
>buy a ticket to the amusement park
>"your ticket is valid for the remainder of the day"
meanwhile
>buy a game "service"
>"your game is available for... uhm... we don't know, we might even pull it off next week, don't ask questions!!"

Just in case it needs explanation for someone who's a bit slow, all services provide you with a time period in which your service is available for the money you pay.
The funny thing is that this is only with pure services in mind.
Video games, unless we're talking about MMOs (or game passes) with subscription fees that clearly states how long your subscription lasts, games are not real services simply because they provide a server after a one-time purchase.
They simply want the benefits of being a service without the responsibilities of being one.

>>714950172
>we've always had a kill switch in cars, you realize how hard it would be to change production lines?
>b-but people will just buy tickets now
you live in la-la land and you lack any meaningful insight because you don't consider the opposing pov

>>714945832
Such greed is pretty bold. I wonder if it was actually a better idea than just hosting the game for free?

>>714950283
>Yes, that is quite literally exactly what the incentive is asking for.
No, the incentive is asking them to stop killing games, not to clarify the terms of service
Because publishers would choose to clarify the terms of service over not killing them every time
I did read the SKG website, feel free to correct me if I got something wrong

>>714943110
Yes
My money, not theirs

>>714950342
i never said that

>>714949309
>its dead in the water no one will sign
>its dead at 400k give up
>its been a year and its just at 480, give up
>okay its at 500k now but it will never reach 600k
>it will never reach 700k
>it will never reach 800k
>it will never hit its goal
>the EU will never respond
>companies wont take this seriously
>You are now here This is never going to pass
You aren't entitled to own a movie forever after you buy a movie ticket
>Okay it passed but they will never enforce it
>Lol do you actually think EA and Ubisoft are gonna pay those ridiculous fines?
>them caving doesnt mean they will patch in offline mode
>so they patched in everything you demanded so what you didnt win

>>714950339
This explains it so well that I'm going to screenshot this and post it any time someone starts from the beginning completely not getting the core concept
I apologize in advance for everyone who accuses "you" of screenshotting your own post

>>714943012 (OP)
>low IQ people with no experience with programming or game development
Like publishers?

>>714948070
subsidies to corpos
muttkikecucks are THAT servile that this is something they deem normal and tend to project

>>714950218
Come into a hypothetical world with me. A world where literally every game ever made suddenly starts being sold on a subscription basis. 100% of them. No exceptions.
Think about how many different games you played in the past month. Imagine that you had to pay $10 per month for each. Or maybe not even that. Maybe some are $5, others are $3, one is $15, whatever. In that scenario, could you honestly tell me with a straight face that you would play that same number of games? As opposed to just owning your copy free and clear and could play whenever you want without having to worry about resubbing?

>>714950396
You said analogous things, and if you really believe what you're saying, people buying tickets is something you logically implied. It becomes a cost-benefit analysis for the company. There's cost, you painted it as all benefit.

>>714950339
I agree with what you're saying, but the initative doesn't just want publishers to clarify the time period, it wants them to make the games playable forever regardless

A friendly reminder for everyone who thinks this isn't real in other industries, new Ford trucks literally can't start if you don't upgrade your software.
This is the future that corporations want.

>>714943012 (OP)

Have you considered the option of kill yourself and free the world of your shilling toward greedy corporations?

>>714943012 (OP)
Major publishers ca eat my entire ass

>>714949760
a movie ticket has
>a clear date of purchase
>a clear indication of how long the service lasts
>is very transparant about it

>>714943012 (OP)
you still dont understand that its about INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
they wont let you use their IP under legal protection no less, the whole point on IP is that they have full - legally protected - control over it

>>714948981
are you to stupid to realize that if you go through with this you'll never see a game under $120 again?

>>714950490
You're conflating limited access with subscriptions
A subscription is a recurring payment
You don't have to buy something with a recurring payment for it to be limited time access
You can pay once and have a thing for a certain period of time, or a certain gauranteed minimum period of time like a warranty

>>714950498
No I said fucking nothing about it being difficult, because it's not

>"noooo we spent millions to develope and establish anti consumer practices and prove their potential monetary gain, somebody else has to pay for that."
No.

>>714950559
That's okay, we're abolishing IP laws next.

>>714943012 (OP)
>>714943104
>>714943110
>>714943146
Are you being paid for these posts?

>>714950505
no

>>714950585
Are you even responding to me at this point? Take a nap or something.

Read: "WHAT THE FUCK HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO MAKE MONEY IF WE CAN'T JUST KILL OFF GAME 1 PERMANENTLY THEN MAKE PEOPLE BUY GAME 2 SO WE CAN KILL IT OFF PERMANENTLY UNTIL PEOPLE BUY GAME 3?!?!?! YOU WANT US TO MAKE GAMES PEOPLE CAN JUST...PLAY...? WITHOUT SPENDING MORE?! NOOOOOOOOO!!!"
Also corposhills begone.

>>714950560
Go ahead, kike. Do it.

>>714950595
abolish the zionists that fully control your country first. good luck

>>714950560
If they could, they would already be charging $120

>>714950702
>we've always had a kill switch in cars, you realize how hard it would be to change production lines?
you made this post?

>>714943012 (OP)
So all the old games that allowed private servers were all too expensive to make and never existed?
Or corps just want to have us by the balls so they can make their old games stop working and force us to buy the new ones.

>>714950595
God, that would be amazing

>>714950732
Soon.

>>714948251
>that's gonna take a lot of time, effort, and money
i don't care
implementing end-of-life measures should be a part of the development process and if that's the thing that's going to make or break your company then you need to figure out who's embezzling money
>you're losing
the initiative has almost 1.3 million signatures

Retards renting loicenses created this problem.

>>714950716
It's the old Warcraft III Single-Player conundrum. Just don't fucking murder the client when someone connects to battle.net. Close the servers if you must, but it's obviously easier to just not alter a thing.

>>714950761
yes, they said they want to destroy your old games - they always wanted to but now they have the means

that was, unironically, their response

>>714949525
I don't know why every retard responding to you doesn't understand the thing they are posting about, but the answer to your question is no. The entire point is that for a majority of games this would not be allowed as it goes against your rights for digital ownership. The EU already has strong laws in this regard anyway. The law is explicitly not a law that just says they have to say you are getting a license instead of a game, and that law already exist anyway.

>>714950716
reminder that the likes of nintendo or blizzard will sue you into oblivion even you try to make a mod with their characters
they will never allow you run a server for an old game that got shutdown

>>714943012 (OP)
>they insist

>>714950562
Buying an extended warranty ALSO has clear terms of service. I got a 5 year one on my washing machine. The machine itself is a product that I own. When the warranty expires, the machine doesn't automatically cease to function.
Just saying "GAME is guaranteed to last at least 1 year from release" isn't even close to compliant with the principles SKG is putting forward. In order to be... closer to compliant... every single customer who pays the asking price has to be guaranteed a specific amount of time from THEIR OWN DATE OF PURCHASE. Every buyer gets a year. Which would mean they would have to stop selling the game completely a year before they kill it.

Publishers would obviously never do that because it would lose them an even bigger shitpile of money.

>>714948883
yeah that worked out well in korea and vietnam

>>714950776
>it's ok, the adl says musk is cool as he supports pissrael

>>714943012 (OP)
Bullshit. Companies have the means but don't want to do it because then it would kill live-service games and finish off The AAA part of the industry.
They don't want you to play older games or try to get into said older ones.

>>714950828
>The entire point is that for a majority of games this would not be allowed
Why? How's it different to buying a movie ticket?

>>714950776
Guy that "unchained" Grok like this got fired.

For making fun of Elon's H1B pajeet team.

>>714950745
Do you understand the caricature at all? It's a dimension you're removing logically. There's really simple solutions in the real world. It doesn't have to even become a real question.

>>714950445
I'm honored that you liked it anon.

>>714950505
>but the initative doesn't just want publishers to clarify the time period
Sure. However, even if that is all it will come down due to massive corporate backlash, the core concept of being services is complete bogus because games (with some exceptions) are not real services just because they patch the game with some content every month.
>it wants them to make the games playable forever regardless
and I agree, games and ALL entertainment SHOULD be experienced until the sun gives out. Music, movies, books, plays (through recordings), games, youtube videos and so on. Fun should be the priority of entertainment, not greed. A shame that this won't be retroactive and many pieces of entertainment will be- and is already lost to time but we've got to start somewhere.

If Publishers didn't want us to do this, why are they releasing such god awful license agreements? How is any of this our fault? Conduct yourself with some dignity you worthless shit

>>714946554
>I dont understand why we dont have people trained in legaleeze be our representatives
Ross isn't the spokesperson, idiot. He said he is in contact with legally experienced people the whole time.

>>714948251
>that's gonna take a lot of time, effort, and money
So?

>>714948773
There are two codes of law at play. Rules for thee, not for me.

>>714950863
>Publishers would obviously never do that
Yes they would, it would cost absolutely nothing
They would do that over handing out the servers or means to play after the end of service every time, no question

>>714950876
He does

Read >>714950892

>>714950560
I see a ton of games at and under 45€ tho. Most of them are.

>>714950876
Forgot link https://x.com/permabulla/status/1942743683394380282

>>714948883
>unironically calls himself someone's truffle pig
>"raisechin.jpg"

>>714949760
taking advantage of good-natured effort-posters is subhuman behavior
you know the answer to this question you pedantic fucking cunt

>>714950904
You're also conflating limited access with subscriptions, but the idea that you can't simply turn something into a subscription or limited access if you want to is completely unreasonable, because the world is full of it already

>>714950995
No I don't know the answer to that question, I'm not a lawyer

>>714948848
>Seeing /v/ become the game publisher's mightiest warrior
calm down, it's just pajeets and other third worlders rage baiting

>>714951050
Well, this is a good warning. You're going to be treated as a reasonable person by default in court. Be prepared for that if it ever comes to that.

>>714951105
what the fuck are you talking about?

>>714951050
you don't need to be a lawyer to know why a movie theater provides services and a retailer provides goods
don't reply to me, i'm only here to insult you

>>714950876
this is why i think the "jewish question" is all just golem talk.
that antisemitism is allowed as long as you support isnotreal so that's the only issue they care about, everything else is a distraction and everyone who goes "well at least they kill shitskins and are white" is a golem

>>714951135
What's the difference between buying access to a movie for a limited period of time and buying access to a game for a limited period of time?

>>714951134
If you were a reasonable person, you'd know.

>>714950939
Opportunity cost, nigga. You'd have people playing the game, talking to their friends about how fun it is, making Youtube videos about it... maybe not a lot of people, if we're talking about a game that's on the chopping block, but that would be an insanely bad look for them.

"Hey, that game looks fun. Can I buy it?"
"No."
"Why not?"
"Because we're shutting down the servers in a year."

It's an insanely bad look. Releasing a goddamn server binary is infinitely easier AND generates customer goodwill.

>>714951173
I'm asking for clarifcation on what exactly a "good" is and you went all schizo on me

>>714948848
Tower of Babel Media is putting in overtime like all good slaves should. The corpo has always been worth more than the individual and you would do well to remember that.

>>714950560
nigger people aren't even buying $70 games anymore, look at steam stats, most people don't play current year games. there's no fucking way ANYONE is gonna raise prices like that.
but you already knew that, you fucking corpo shill

>>714951050
A ticket to a movie is an experience and a game purchase is you buying a product. If you went to play the game in the arcade, you don't own it no matter how many quarters you put in, but if you bought the arcade machine, and then they disabled it randomly, that wouldn't be very good now would it? For the movie thing, when you buy a DVD, it's not the same as going to a movie theater. Imagine you buy a DVD and then after you watch it a couple of times it just gets disabled.

>>714950364
>No, the incentive is asking them to stop killing games, not to clarify the terms of service
It's neither. It's asking for terms of service to have reasonable limitations. It wants publishers to no longer be allowed to just put "the game can be terminated at any time for any reason with no explanation" in the TOS and have absolutely zero accountability against ripping people off. Stuff like subscription based MMOs for instance would be completely unaffected because they already run on an agreement for a specific duration of service.

Games would be allowed to kill themselves as long as the kill date is clearly communicated to the user, however this would be such a publicity disaster that ideally publishers will just implement basic EOL into their games instead. And if they don't? Then consumers can clearly see which games to avoid.

>>714951183
Are you ignorant? Games shut down already as it is, game developers announce that their game is shutting down and you'll only have X amount of time left to play before it closest, happens all the time

>>714947148
Don't forget they are also narcissistic douches who will blame gamers for every screw-up and their games not selling.

No it's not the their fault the games are un-optimized messes with shitty gameplay, graphics, artstyle, story and characters. It's the gamers who either have shit taste or are big meanies.

>petition hits goals
>companies already preemptively killing games
if they wernt afraid they wouldnt do this

>>714943012 (OP)
>you don't understand
>you want to use the product you've given us money for?
>that's way too expensive
>nope, can't be done
>we'll just take the product away from you instead
I sometimes think I got moved to some parallel reality or something, this shit is so ridiculous it seems unreal.

>>714951189
I invoked something that would get invoked against you in court. "You should know" is unironically what the court thinks.

>>714951171
The disingenous nature of your argument is the answer. Thankfully Europeans dislike corpo speak bullshit like what you are doing right now and make many laws against it unlike Cuckmericans.

>>714950907
Give us all your money first then we’ll stop.

>>714943053
What about the back catalogue? Publishers like ubi soft has thousands of games under it and probably at least ten are going to have to be retrofitted to fit mandates.

>>714951228
>It's asking for terms of service to have reasonable limitations
It's asking for them to Stop Killing Games. They've outlined plans for them to do this. It's not just about having reasaonable terms of service

>>714950560 >>714950737

already
>buy the latest yearly sportslop for 70$
>now you need to spend ~50$ on mtx to actually fully play it

>>714951189
google it, you subhuman ape
this should not need any explanation whatsoever if you finished high school
you're intentionally being obtuse so you can argue about minutia instead of the relevant points

>>714951183
well it'd be more like
>Hey, that game looks fun. Can I buy it?
>sure but the servers are getting shutdown in a year

>>714951289
The court would not expect me to know the legal definition of a good