So, i do not understand the Stop Killing Games movement or whatever.
I think the only problem here is that the devs/publishers/stores dont properly say it is a license.
Here is an example: Lets say you have a license to a cleaning service and for that they come everyday to your house and clean it. If the company can no longer clean your house, why shoult they be forced to buy you a cleaning robot, or teach you their cleaning technic or whatever.
My point is the devs shoult say it is a license more clearly even though they say it people just dont read it and agree. They shoult not be forced to share something or spend time doing something or put money on it, of course if they want they can. But why shoult there be a required to do it. The people shoult look what they are buying and buy it. Simple as that
>>716257917 (OP)I pay for a thing
I want to have the thing
And no, it's not a license if it's advertised as goods
>>716258189eat shit tranny op
/thread
>>716257917 (OP)>My point is the devs shoult say it is a license more clearly even though they say it people just dont read it and agree.Licenses can be perpetual you goomba.
However, they could indeed meet legal requirements for services if they indicated ahead of time how long the service will last, but that would be bad for business.
An end of life plan would be preferable for them, but they'll fight it anyways.
>>716257917 (OP)Learn English faggot
>>716257917 (OP)the normalisation of everything being a fucking license and you not actually owning anything is a bad thing actually, and should be legislated out of existence
>>716258189>a thingnot "a thing", but a very specific thing and only if specific requirements are met. Won't stop the killing of games that don't meet the criteria.
>>716257917 (OP)Don't feel bad, SKG shills themselves don't even understand what SKG does. They keep telling me that online games getting "killed" will stop happening, but SKG will enshrine in law the right for corporations to kill their games, so long as the customer is aware and a vague end date is given.
>>716258189Not really. A good can be a service and services can end. Hope this helps.
>>716259361okay rabbi but unfortunately the real world isn't jewish and you will lose this like you always lose everything
>>716260962I'm just explaining service games as defined by SKG. No need to have a temper tantrum.
>>716261061>got named>tries desperately to maintain some semblance of authority while everyone is laughing at your mutant ratlike featuresgo take another sip off the baby dick goldstein-silvernigger
>>716261803lol seething jew
it would apply to different games in different ways but it's generally there to ensure end of support plans or service that complies with the already existing law
>license to a cleaning service
this is kind of like an mmo subscription and already complies with the law because you know when the service will end if you stop paying it.
something like concord would be unlawful being discontinued after a week with no warning and no way at all to play it
>>716261973>keeps seethingkek
>>716259021I'd still rather there not be ambiguity in law or contracts. If a traveling salesman comes to my house and sells me a vacuum, I want to know whether or not he is allowed to remotely disable to vacuum whenever he feels like it.
why op maker is a tryhard samefag trying to fore and stir a fake drama just because op is bored and a contrarian loser
>>716257917 (OP)the problem is publishers transparently killing off old games to shape the market
they can get fucked and so can op
>>716257917 (OP)>I think the only problem here is that the devs/publishers/stores dont properly say it is a license.The whole concept of a licensed game is shit and shouldn't exist. Its like licensing everything people could ever own. Do you think car manufacturers should never actually sell you a car, but merely give you their license to use one?
>>716257917 (OP)Stop Killing Games is a consumer movement started to challenge the legality of publishers destroying video games they have sold to customers.
It's not about some gay disclaimer, it's about keeping what you paid for.
>>716258912>>716259361Your lawyers can invent another 3000 fake ways that say that I don't own what I bought, but I don't care about that. You are stealing from me and I will do everything in my power to put an end to that.
>>716257917 (OP)this might actually be the worst op post I’ve ever read
>>716263339Hey I paid for a movie ticket. There is no reason why I cant see the same movie whenever I want at the theater. So I should be able to, right?
>>716263435Services end so you're not being stolen from. Once SKG passes there will be legal precident for services to end.
>>716263668you bought a dvd. the director comes to your house in a month or ten years and smashes that dvd and tells you maybe he'll release the movie on blueray, maybe not, but you have no recourse.
this movement addresses and fixes that abuse.
Skg will avalanche into devs having to release the source code for every game 3 years after launch and there's NOTHING corpo fucks can do about it
>>716262537>but the movie theater didnt tell me the movie ended, it was an ambiguous grey area
>>716263872IP law disagrees.
>>716257917 (OP)They don't clearly label that it's going to die and you don't really own it because some people might reconsider their purchase if it was labeled like that. It's why small print is a thing, to try and cover your ass while also hoping that people just ignore it or don't see it and use the product/service anyways.
>I'll give you a copy of my IP, you can do whatever you want with the only stipulation to not distribute any additional copies you made or claim the IP as a whole belongs to you. You can do whatever you want to your actual copy though, you can shit on it for all I care
>Sounds reasonable
The simple bare ass version of how a license agreement over books, movies, tv shows and music has been done for years upon years. Yet vidya publishers want to scream that they should have total control over what exists on my computer. Get fucked.
It should be no different to physical mediums, the literal only difference is the carrier method that the data gets onto my computer.
>>716264057Continuing to lie about random shit.
Wonder if he'll respond to the blizzard employees coming out to say "Yeah this fucker was a nepo baby that did nothing".
>>716257917 (OP)I don't want that though and am prepared to make you give me what I want.
>>716257917 (OP)Provisions made for movies and songs do not translate well to video games, because they're an interactive media that you can't preserve by just making a video out of it, like you can with other media.
And with that specific legislation and rules need to be created and set, if you wish to preserve games for the future generations.
If you destroy the files being served in the server, you are effectively destroying part of the game or the game as a whole, stopping it from reaching the final destination as public domain entirely.
>>716263673Le Dumb Pirate man warned everyone, "You will get everything you asked for and nothing you wanted."
Ubisoft already made their End of Life plans very public. Anyone expecting any company to actually release code that isnt already available to all is delusional.
>716263861But I didnt buy a DVD. I bought a ticket. That I can use to play a game on my computer.
If I had bought a DVD, I would have a DVD at home. I dont get DVDs from theaters. I get tickets.
>>716263891How can you be this dumb? By your reasoning when you buy a car it can stop working whenever Ford wants to shut it off. Most products aren't services, and games should be clearly classified as games or services.
>>716264057>eceleb dramaWhy do skigger shills always revert back to this?
>>716264205Two more weeks?
>>716264176Then you went to a concert and bought a CD and were fine when the record company smashed your CD in the future. Just because you're retarded and don't get the movement doesn't mean the people who signed it weren't geniuses compared to you.
>Car
Product
>Warranty
Service.
>Game
Product
>Matchmaking, anti-cheat, e-shop etc.
Services.
Remove the latter from the former and the former should still work. Simple as.
>>716264187You can lease cars (service) or outright purchase them (not a service)
>>716257917 (OP)If you buy a game you should own the game. Simple as.
>>716264282What exactly are you hoping to see nigga
>>716264338A game can be entirely a service like Fallguys
>>716264359Which is different and covered by different laws. If you buy a CD you have a reasonable expectation that you own a copy of the music or game. No one is claiming you have a right to lock up the singer in a cage.
>>716264402I'm not hoping anything. SKG might accomplish box art warnings or symbols to more clearly define what aspects of the game are services, and that's it. Everything else is on you to understand before buying a game There was never any rugpulling and any grievance on your part is willful ignorance.
>>716264441What part of fallguys necessitates the game from the bottom being a service?
>>716264640>box art warnings or symbols to more clearly define what aspects of the game are services, and that's itNice. It's already a step in the right direction.
That could be a frank discussion between the developers and gamers.
But the developers and publishers are extremely aggressive with the public, so that''s how it goes.
>>716264289Let me say this in a way you'll actually understand.
Steam never sold games.
GOG never sold games.
Ubisoft finally realized, they never sold games.
They sell *tickets*.
And now you're angry, because you're realizing its all tickets.
And the worst thing is, it isnt even really Steam's or GOG's fault, they are okay with pretending tickets are real and are willing to provide for things for as long as they are allowed.
EA has been taking games offline for the last twenty years. Ubi just made everyone notice the norm.
>>716264714The sixty or so other people that you play against makes for a pretty good case, managing and matchmaking them isnt trivial. Cant have that without a service structure.
Even running your own server would be running your own service.
More proof online games were devised as planned obsolescence from the start
>>716265091And now they will have to deal with EU, because it's pretty obvious that they were planning even worse.
>>716265091>The sixty or so other people that you play against makes for a pretty good case,But what if I just want to have a match with friends for ol' times sake?
>managing and matchmaking them isnt trivial.Then drop the matchmaking and allow for hosted servers
>Even running your own server would be running your own service.THEN GIVE ME THE MEANS TO MAKE MY OWN SERVERS THEN
>>716265091>Dragging GOG into thisRemember: GoG removed the Nu-Hitman games from their store because of the retarded DRM.
>>716264714The entire game requires a revolving door of users existing and being active
>>716265091Cool, how do I steal the entire stadium and the band and make it mine to keep under threat of violence? Cause I'm for that. I support that. Anyone who isn't for that, I condone violence against them.
>>716264784For you maybe. I never needed help buying things.
>>716265261So does Quake and Unreal Tournament multiplayer, yet I doubt those games have a 24/7 active playerbase.
Better advertisement is an improvement, but I want to own my games (and the rest of my digital media as well).
>>716265091I tried to tell them that you can't own digital games and they got really offended at me. They should have listened to my good advice.
>>716265459You are saying it like it is an impossibility, it really fucking isn't, it is a matter of the law getting in on it.
Tell me, why is downloading a game different from ripping the contents from a disc in a way means I can't own that same data?
>>716259361It must still be advertised fairly as a service if it primarily functions as such. False advertising is a crime in first world countries. Hope this helps.
>>716257917 (OP)>I think the only problem here is that the devs/publishers/stores dont properly say it is a license.Because they're not, when you buy a game you're buying a product, not a license.
https://linustechtips.com/topic/953835-you-own-the-software-that-you-purchase-and-any-claims-otherwise-are-urban-myth-or-corporate-propaganda/
>>716265172They'll have to deal with the EU telling them they are operating legally, yes.
Why do people that is anti SKG even exist? Unless theyre literally corpo shills
>>716265612lmao @ this cope
>>716258189> Buys disney park ticket>> WHAT DO YOU MEAN I CAN'T OWN THE WHOLE PLACE AND I JUST GET TO RIDE IT FOR WHAT MY TICKET IS WORTH?
>>716265619Why would anyone be opposed to a movement that has has been fraudulent by not disclosing income precisely to skirt existing regulations hmmmm?
>>716265619Contrarianism, actual shills, Temporarily Embarrassed Billionaires, pick your poison.
>>716265343But they are service games.
>>716265720Because the means justify the ends, so even if that were the case, no one could oppose it for that.
>>716265720Cope, the leaders of the ECI already spoke to the EU to see if what Ross is doing is ok all the way back in Spring last year.
Youtube revenue talking about it does not constitute donation nor declare ross as a sponsor of the initiative.
>>716265720This isnt even remotely true. But still even if its true the movement is still good for the gamers. Of course you arent a gamer but a corpo shill
>>716265619On this site? To ragebait.
>>716265767actually epic took down their servers, they no longer operate those services, yet i can still play them with other people somehow, funny how that works, innit
>>716265790Requesting Rickshaw Ross pictures.
>>716257917 (OP)>dont properly say it is a licenseDigital licenses are established as their own thing under EU law. They are neither goods nor services but digital content is generally treated as closer to a product.
here is the law verbatim:
>Directive (EU) 2019/770, Recital 56:>Digital content or digital services can be supplied to consumers through a single act of supply or in multiple sequential acts of supply over a period of time. The distinctive element of this category of digital content or digital service is the fact that consumers thereafter have the possibility to access and use the digital content or digital service indefinitely. This should be the case, for example, where a consumer downloads a film, an application or an e-book."https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/770/oj
Earlier in the document it distinguishes 'digital content' as something that is purchased by the customer via a "single act of supply", meaning you buy it and it's yours forever. If you were to buy a copy of The Crew for example, your copy of The Crew should continue to be playable indefinitely.
If you wish to supply a service then you must engage in a subscription-based model, such as a monthly fee. If you charge the customer once then it is expected that they will keep their product forever.
>>716265574>You are saying it like it is an impossibility, it really fucking isn't,Yeah it is.
>why is downloading a game different from ripping the contents from a disc in a way means I can't own that same data?They're not different. They're both worthless ripped copies from an official source.
>>716264220/v/ is full of friendless losers who make parasocial relationships with youtubers.
NEStalgia is an MMORPG that completely died in like 2016 because they shut down the servers and the worst part is they're still selling that unplayable game in Steam. When I think of Stop Killing Games, I think of the tragedy of NEStalgia. It was a really good game and its owners deserve to be able to play it even if it's offline.
>>716265948>If you charge the customer once then it is expected that they will keep their product forever.EULA disagrees sweety, try again next time :^)
>>716265705oh good the amusement park shill is back
>buying a game isn't buying a game it's sctually buying a ticket to disney land! b--because i said so!
>>716265605>It must still be advertised fairly as a serviceFor you, yes. I don't need to be told since I'm a smart consumer.
>>716266037>Yeah it is.How?
>They're not different. They're both worthless ripped copies from an official source.They still function, yet one I can run whenever I want and the other people claim I don't own. The method of data transfer is different, but the data hasn't changed.
>>716266064EULAs are not laws but are subject to laws. And corporations do not possess law-making powers.
>>716257917 (OP)>Ross has been running an illegal rickshaw business right under our noses this whole timeMy faith in SKG was decimated after that
>>716263891They list the run time of the movie when you buy the ticket.
>>716265850Not really. I already knew corporations can allow private servers if they want. It's their choice and their right as the owner of that property.
>>716266247how about you shut up
>>716257917 (OP)all the movement is about is to give community hosted servers like tf2, why is this so hard to understand?
>>716266064For a EULA to be enforceable, it needs to meet the standard requirements of a contract, such as offer, acceptance, and consideration, and the terms must be clear, reasonable, and not overly restrictive, and any EULA that includes an arbitrary end of service with no recourse is generally unenforceable
>>716266247Reminds me when the projector fucked up when the local movie theater was playing Tron Legacy just before he got to the Grid. We got refunds for that.
Hmmm...
>>716266108For it to be legally compliant, it doesn't matter how smart you incorrectly assume yourself to be. We aren't in some rathole like China where it's socially accepted to be a dishonest crook.
>>716266281it is the right of the owner of an instance of an ip to use it, an ip owner rendering an instance of it unusable is unlawful
>>716265179You have sixty friends??
Seriously, any solution to this that involves them releasing code or binaries is fiction.
The entire reason Le Pirate man is so assblasted is that if the EU somehow forces companies to come to that, at best the Live Service genre ends, at worst multiplayer goes back to the times where you need to open ports and type IP numbers.
I mean, you can say "Team Fortress 2 has server lists!" but who provides the server to serve the server lists? Who provides the entire handshake that needs to be done so you can just jump in someone's game? Does that need an End-of-service plan too? You really think STEAMWORKS binaries will ever become public???
Remember, any solution that involves releasing code is fiction.
>>716265574Someone pays for every single time you download. They pay for every single second they need to hold a copy of the game in their library, in case you ever wanna play Titanfall 2 for the twelfth time again. The fact its a profitable business doesnt mean there is no cost.
Shit, there's a good argument here somewhere about Steam being run as a taxpayer-funded museum.
>>716265303And this is why piracy is such a terrible thing, kids! Think of the stadiums, musicians, audiences and hotdog vendors you keep hostage whenever you pirate!
>>716265253Like I said, GOG is willing to honor the tickets forever, its just the guys they get tickets from who are having funny ideas.
>>716266064it's wild how countries have legal systems that are able to make judgments about what constitutes a reasonable expectation of ownership on the part of the customer. corporations don't get to do whatever they want because they wrote some words
>>716265343Nigger, id software released the quake trilogy's entire source code for free and people's still playing
shut the fuck up
If buying isn't Ownership piracy isn't theft.
Simple as
>>716266379>You have sixty friends??No, but I should be able to play with my small number of friends.
Just fucking bundle the required server code with the game, no need to perpetually host it forever. See: Unreal Tournament 99.
>>716257917 (OP)stop killing niggers you racists!
>>716264057You mean jason
>>716265948>If you charge the customer once then it is expected that they will keep their product forever.Who told you this? It's wrong. Services end.
>>716266291Thankfully all those parameters were already met.
>>716266336They are already legally compliant.
>>716266371You can't own a service.
Reminder: If you think it is bad now, just wait for the wave of shills and bad faith arguments when it comes time for the EU commission to actually start the process.
>>716266528Buying can be owning so you're punching air, and good luck pirating a server.
>>716267043there won't be a process. it'll get laughed off the desk.
>>716267110Considering MEPs are already coming out in public support? nah.
>>716266528You own a LICENSE for your game chuddy. Should've read the fine print :)
>>716267208I technically own a license for my War of the Worlds book, but no one can revoke it from me.
>>716267256because it's public domain, retard.
>>716267208Too bad in the EU thanks to consumer protections if the average consumer would think they bought the game and not a license for the game it means they actually did buy the game and the corporation can go find some other way to fuck over consumers
>>716267348Ok, my entire collection of Deltora's Quest then, a collection I've owned since I was a kid.
It's not public domain.
It is still a license for each book.
Yet no one can revoke it from me.
>>716267425*Deltora Quest
Dunno why I added 's
>>716267389>details of a transaction depends on the customer's misunderstandingno wonder you still use our currency
>>716266893>Who told you this?the EU
>>716267389>the corporation can go find some other way to fuck over consumersWhat was the first way? Keep in mind games can be services and services can end at the disgression of the person providing them.
>>716267526Yeah if a corporation is trying to trick the consumers they can go get fucked
>>716265705tickets makes it very clear they're just allowing entrance to the park for a limited time. Video games do not advertise themselves as limited services that you can't use within a few years.
>>716267541No they didn't. If SKG passes then service games become enshrined into law.
>>716267742>No they didn't.Listen man, I already posted direct quotes from the law. If you want to read them, do so. If not, stop replying to me with "nuh uh".
>>716267679There is no such a thing as a service with no obvious end time that is a one time payment
>>716267741>tickets makes it very clear they're just allowing entrance to the park for a limited time.So does the game operating entirely online. Very clear, to me at least. I'm not sure why its not clear to less intelligent people.
>>716267689nobody is trying to trick you. you literally can't play the game without seeing the license agreement. it's not the publisher's fault you don't want to read what you're buying.
>>716257917 (OP)>I see nothing wrong with you not owning anythingits partly because of retards like you the world is going to shit
>>716267026i don't claim to own a service, i own an instance of an ip, and any removal of my ability to access it is unlawful
>>716266969>Thankfully all those parameters were already met.I can only assume you mean these parameters
>any EULA that includes an arbitrary end of service with no recourse is generally unenforceableThanks for agreeing with me
>>716267872>So does the game operating entirely onlinereally? how long does it guarantee to stay playable?
>>716267872>So does the game operating entirely online.lol no they don't, they announce end of service like mere months before they get deleted, the only online games that truly makes it clear they're a service are mmos and thats because of the subscription.
>Very clear, to me at least.watch out everyone, we got a redditor here.
>>716257917 (OP)IMO, the argument makes sense with always online single player games (i.e. Hitman) and multiplayer games that only use online play for matchmaking (i.e. Halo).
Expecting Blizzard to release server files for a game like WoW is just kind of silly.
Why is there an irish language option on the stopkillinggames site?
>>716267874I don't have to agree to anything when buying the game. If you want to kill a game a year after it's launch you have to actually tell me that is happening when I'm buying the game
>>716267819>the fact that consumers thereafter have the possibility to access and use the digital content or digital service indefinitely. This should be the case, for example, where a consumer downloads a film, an application or an e-book.So if a game requires user activity to function then the game becomes illegal when nobody is playing it and should then be killed by the entity providing the service?
>>716268047The jew fears the potato
>>716267974A reasonable amount of time
>>716268256would you describe that as being "very clear"?
>>716268149What motivates you to type out stupid shit like this on the internet?
>>716268086If you're going to make it illegal for online games to fail then you're just going to get monthly sub fees to play a game since apparently having a one time lump sum payment is the problem here.
>>716268149i mean yeah if you made a game that literally can't run unless there's at least two users accessing the server at the same but i've yet to see or hear about such a game.
>>716267979So you want more subscription based games?
>>716268424It's not illegal for them to fail, you just have to provide a way to play it offline
>>716268374I will gladly stop replying to you, shill.
>>716257917 (OP)There is quite literally no disclosure at the point of sale for any game that it will cease to function.
"Online only" does not disclose any kind of shit down. Given that the vast majority of games, online or otherwise, have continued to function past the end of support, it is not reasonable to expect the layman to assume a game will cease to function at the end of the support period
The argument gets even more muddy when you consider that most PC games from the 90s will not run on a computer natively anymore. They need some kind of patch (usually made by fans) to make them work.
Are companies expected to keep games running on every system indefinitely?
>>716268424>>716268508Yeah they should make their games subscription based if they want to kill them
>>716268707it's called a virtual machine you fucking retard
run it in a virtual machine
>>716268707It should run on the system it used to run on
>>716268256LMAO get bent you stupid fucking faggot
>>716268347of course not but don't expect a reply. this is what the shills do, they get cornered and then they stop responding and make another bait post.
>>716268565No they don't. They can make a game online multiplayer only with matchmaking if they want.
>>716257917 (OP)Patch it to work offline
>but everything runs through the serv-Move the functions into the installation
>but the middlewa-Don't use that middleware
>but my IP right-You don't hold any rights over the IP. Your company does. Let me know when people lose their rights
>>716268832that's what the campaign is aiming to change.
>>716268832Yeah and when they decide to turn off the servers they get to provide the consumers with some way of connecting to other players without needing the server
>>716257917 (OP)>So, i do not understand the Stop Killing Games movement or whatever.Disingenuous formatting detected, OP is a troll.
>>716268891Lost them at step one when you removed creative freedom from game design.
>>716268256So in other words it's not very clear?
>>716268958Why? You can simply just not buy online only multiplayer games.
>>716268256so not very fucking clear at all you baboon brained gravel chewing nincompoop.
>>716268978No they don't. This is one part of SKG that will never pass.
>>716263673Enshittification makes sure that all "services" will degrade in quality as the prices go higher. You pay in for a good deal, then they start making it worse for you and harder for you to stop the subscription, just look at Adobe, Netflix, Disney+, Youtube Premium etc.
You paid to have access to high quality content and without ads, now you're getting lower quality, less content and ads yet again, as you're paying more than what you paid for initially, and they make it harder for you to cancel your subscription, so much so that you'd rather keep paying the monthly fee than go through the hoops.
Video games at large are not services, but goods.
There are service video games like World of Warcraft and Final Fantasy XIV, to which the SKG does not apply, as you get exactly what you're paying for, a defined amount of playtime, not ownership of your copy of the game.
>>716257917 (OP)>I think the only problem here is that the devs/publishers/stores dont properly say it is a license.No, the problem isn't some legalese idiocy, it is a practical matter. The problem is some devs take money and provide a game for said money, then arbitrarily decide to take the game away but do not return the money when they do so. That is clearly unfair, you should not get to remove the person's game while at the same time also keeping the money he gave you for the game. I'm not sure how this is a difficult concept, it's very straight-forward.
>>716261061No retard, SKG does not "define" anything. SKG is not a law. It is not a legal text. It is a petition from EU citizens towards EU politicians that explains an abusive situation the citizens are subjected to by corporations and asks the legislators to amend the law such that this abuse by corporations is made illegal. It's these politicians who will "define" things when they make or change the law, they're the ones who decide how to write the actual law in order to bring this corporate behavior into illegality such that it may be prevented or punished in the future.
>>716263673So you're saying there's currently no legal precedent for services to end? Well shit, when is Ubisoft getting fined for illegally ending a service?
>>716264057Considering how much the SKGroids shittalked him while hyping SKG as the next messiah, he’s going to be vindicated when the EU does nothing as usual (muh iPhone USB) and KiwiFarms might actually get Jobst
>>716269143Why wouldn't it? Any half decent programmer can do that in a couple days
>>716269018Can you predict the future? No? Seems hypocritical to expect someone else to be able to. Then again I am fair and unbiased in my approach to everything since I am honest.
>>716269082why not? i can simply change the law.
>>716268047Why wouldn't there be? Ireland is in the EU and Irish is spoken there, no?
>>716269219ubisoft is literally (as in the actual meaning of the word literally) in the middle of being sued for ending services for the crew right now
>>716269117Give them a break, you can't predict the future either
>>716269147>EnshittificationStopped reading.
>>716257917 (OP)I don't really get it either, I thought it was only going to mess with online games. Why would stores be affected? Are they going to send the Valvejeets to shit
>>716257917 (OP)or what?
thumb_up
md5: 3b25d75296de6e65760eec0a7282a470
🔍
>>716268256What is, in your opinion, "a reasonable amount of time"?
A live-service game called "Dawngate" by EA, which I happened to like, closed its servers permanently after only 90 days from its released. I only got to play the game for one month.
There is not a universe where a game being online for three months is "reasonable"
Your argument is utterly flawed from the get go.
To someone who's just starting a game, imagine them hearing that it's going to be closed within a few days. That is far from "reasonable", but you already knew that, you dishonest, disingenuous retard cunt.
>>716269254if you're going to sell a service then you need to provide a time frame during which said service is going to be accessible. that's only fair. gym owners can't predict the future either but they still sell year-long memberships.
>>716257917 (OP)NEVER SUPPORT EU LAWS/OVERLEGISLATION
You, as an American, will end up paying the difference.
(just like with healthcare, where American drug price premiums pay for every medical discovery/innovation, and yuros get to reap the benefits for free with their commie system that dictates terms to pharma)
Supporting yurope as an American means you support higher prices for your fellow Americans, so that Yuropeans can play cheaper for longer.
Anyone crying about intellectual property while trying to claim ownership rights to the content of my personal computer can kiss my ass. My PC is private property
>>716269306They speak english in ireland.
>>716269569sounds like americans should institute a single payer system for drugs so that they dont get taken to the cleaners every time they buy insulin
>>716269253Then start coding
>>716269298Occam's razor sides with me
All commies will hang.
> NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO I'M NOT A COMMIE I ONLY WANT TO DICTATE OTHER PEOPLE HOW TO LIVE THEIR LIVES
All commies will hang.
>>716269569kike i dont care if your line goes down, not my problem. start paying me in actual money if you want me to care
>>716269647>sounds like Americans should take all the money out of drug discover and treatment innovationThe granny dying of cancer on the NHS wait list disagrees.
>>716269569>free market when i like it:D
>free market when i don't like it:|
>>716267872I'm sorry retard-man but what's clear to you doesn't mean shit to me. You can say the sky is green and why the fuck should I agree with you?
If it's not specified, then it's not. What's difficult to understand from that simple phrase?
>>716269535It's up to the diagression of the provider of the service. In the case of something like Sony's Concord, it was immediately. For Ubisoft's The Crew it was 10 years. For Valve's Artifact it was 6 years.
>>716269254There's not a shred of honesty in you.
You don't have to predict the future for a game that has an end-of-life plan. It'll be playable forever, and it doesn't require a central server to function.
There are games from the 90's that have functional multiplayer long after the studios making them have closed doors.
And this isn't some forgotten ancient knowledge, back then, it was harder to implement, there is zero reason why in today's day and age, we couldn't have functional multiplayer for an online game after central servers have been shut down.
You're literally arguing against seatbelts for cars. Minimal cost for something that is essential for your product. Sure, it's cheaper to just dump your game and pretend like it never existed in the first place, and laughing all the way to the bank with the sold copies, but this is against all possible consumer rights.
>>716269792this is such a stupid argument that it can only possibly come from an american
access to care is pretty much the only way in which the american health care system isn't the best in the world, literally every other first world country has fewer grannies dying because they can't get cancer treatment
>>716269721"it's easier not to" is not a good reason for someone to not do something, it applies to literally anything and everything you could ever think of doing.
>>716269653That's the devs job, not mine
>>716269562>if you're going to sell a service then you need to provide a time frame during which said service is going to be accessible.The future is unpredictable so in this case I will shift entirely to monthly sub fees. Enjoy your now more expensive games because you were unwilling to take a risk.
>>716269415Don't get mad at the truth.
If you just looked at the services we have today and look at them few years back, it's all getting worse, but with a higher price.
Services are made to squeeze all the money from its users, providing minimal value back.
>>716269253>implyingThey’re worse than Jason, if they even ever printed “Hello World.”
Had they actually know how to code, they wouldn’t be running to Daddy Gubment for intervention.
This is just the Millennials’ midlife crisis to desperately immortalize themselves. That’s why they’re disingenuous when they accuse you of being anti-consumer for calling them retards.
Maybe if they practiced for a year, they’ll be at Yandere Dev levels of competency, probably not.
>>716269569It's time Europe paid it's fair shar Mr. Obama!
>>716269632Your games aren't.
>>716257917 (OP)>Lets say you have a license to a cleaning service and for that they come everyday to your house and clean it.Those services have a clear beginning and end times. Such as buying the service for a month or several a time. You pay for it, then they do their job, and you pay for their services again for longer if deemed necessary.
It also isn't a "license", it is advertised as a service/contract. Not as a product or license.
So not only do you fuck up by calling it a license, you also fucked up by not knowing basic cleaning services and how their contracts work.
Now OP, why did you use an example you don't know anything about, then used it in wrong way anyway?
SKG wants proper regulations for industry. Argue why access to a physical product you bought should be blocked. We aren't talking about current vidya btw, but games in future. Of course it's better pr for devs to add eol plans in current games too but who knows.
>>716269992Why would they do anythign for you without payment first? You ok with monthly subs for a pirvate server?
>>716270106anything that enters my PC is mine. Your games that illegally install rootkits included.
>>716270018i'm glad i made you see things my way, shillbro.
>>716269653>companies can let users still play without the need of a dedicated server>no they can't that won't pass anyway>yes they can, any decent programmer of a game studio can make it happen>do it yourself then!!!!Was it autism?
>>716269936Occam's razor disagrees.
>>716258440Not only this but...
2022 Digital goods directives in EU state that:
All digital goods need to be refunded if the product sold changes in major way (such as not working) and/or does not provide the expected service.
Not only that, in a case where the user thinks this is the case - they can one sidedly terminate the contract and demand a refund.
so
>TLDR; current EU directives are way stricter than SKG - if a company shuts down a game, all the paying users have to be refunded.
>>716269003Creative freedom is useless without creative talent
>>716269082It's okay for corporations to violate human rights because the people "just" shouldn't get fooled?
>>716270179I already paid for the game
>>716270175So you want every online game to charge monthly fees or else break EU law? I do not want this.
>>716257917 (OP)explain why should I accept that it's just a license now when for 8 generations it was a product they sold to you and you owned.
>>716269003Don't care. Make it work offline. Connecting players to players, or players to microtransaction stores, or players to drm is not creativity. It's pure functionality
Every anti-SKG shill reminds me of how a hundred years ago, when a film wasn't popular in theaters anymore, the tapes would be burned and destroyed. Their arguments were exactly the same.
>No one watches it anymore!
>We've got to make way for new things!
>You expect us to store all this film? That costs money!
90% of films made before 1929 are gone because of this.
>>716270360SKG isn't retroactive. In a world were your game failing breaks EU law because you paid upfront they will simply shift to subscription type payments.
Grand majority of games have developer builds with offline modes and the ability to play without servers or emulate servers locally.
Thats how games are made.
>>716270420If they think a subscription model is better than providing an offline mode when they kill the servers they can go right ahead
>>716257917 (OP)>The people shoult look what they are buying and buy it. Simple as thatGreat, now put a big "YOU RENT THIS GAME + SHUTS DOWN IN 6 MONTHS" sticker on the cover, arial black, bold, font size 48
>>716270420what is it you shills say? "just vote with your wallet" or something along those lines.
>>716270313I already knew that.
>>716270323I wasn't fooled. So it's legal by me.
>>716269653That's what is currently happening, games being revived by the fanbases.
But it isn't something the playerbase should have to do in the first place, the developers should be obligated to provide an end of life plan for the game, otherwise it's a clear scam, they took money for something that is no longer accessible of the players.
The player ran servers will be free for everybody, the people who paid for the game will be joined by those who didn't, imagine how they must feel. Should've pirated the game since day 1, right?
>>716270489>comparing movies to games.What!? I ate this banana, where is my banana? I’m entitled to banana!
I can argue in bad faith too. Read the EULA next time.
>>716270535That's what they'll do.
>>716270568I'm not shilling for SKG, I'm opposed to it.
>>716270601I bet you're giggling and kicking your feet right now.
>>716270601NTA, but I live in EU and in here EULA/TOS are not binding if they break consumer law. Which they do. I don't need to read it.
>>716270590They'll bypass all of that by charging monthly.
>>716270678which law are they breaking?
>>716270651Why are you opposed to it?
Absolutely nothing serious will come out of it, and it's fun to watch /v/ pretend that it's akshwally about ethics of game preservation.
>>716270651Well they can then move on to subscription models then, I won't be playing them
>>716269762>Don’t mess with EA/Ubisoft/Valve/Nintendo!>Don’t you see you’re making the mega corporation lose millions of dollars? That’s literally communism!So the meme was true. Mutts really are the perfect golems.
>>716270106Any attempt to remove my possessions from my private property will be considered trespassing and burglary
>>716270258You let dead people think for you. You rely on maxims and principles to guide your belief systems, instead of applying your rationality in critical discourse. Your thoughts are not your own, your decisions are possessed by a past spirit, and I pity you.
>>716270489if they were on celluloid then storing them was a pretty big fire hazard and storing them properly probably was pretty expensive at the time, a pity they didn't have the less expensive methods we have today ie digitization
>>716270580We have ourselves a Ted Bundy Jr. here. Nothing you say is to be taken seriously, as it only serves as manipulation for you to get your way.
Literal fucking psycho/sociopath, kill yourself before you do it to someone else.
The notion of "vote with your wallet" doesn't work, since the entire industry wants to take away any control you have over your purchases. Look at Game Pass. That's one step of their goal. You rent through a subscription model. Stadia is their ultimate goal, it just arrived too soon. They want to eventually reach a point where you're subscribing to a service where you still have to pay full price for games, that you don't own, aren't hosted on your system, and can be modified, or taken away at a moment's notice.
>Uhh, Stadia flopped though!
They'll try again. In five years. In 10. It doesn't matter. That's the goal.
>>716270590Those are just MMOs and they were revived by people that actually play the games, not clout chasers like SKG.
>>716270678You’re right, that’s probably why attorneys are clamoring for lawsuits, oh wait. Nothing ever happens!
>>716270745If they remove a game from me and dont refund me, I can take them to court and they HAVE TO refund me.
Because no EULA/TOS can go agains 2022 Digital Goods Directive that states they have to refund me. - for example.
It's just not worth it for me in anything else than something like Star Citizen. Since the cost of eu court and lawyer amounts to like 2000€, so for the effort and money invested, winning back some sub 100€ might not be worth my time.
>>716270258you have no idea what occam's razor is.
>>716270751>Why are you opposed to it?It will add ugly warning lables to box art
It will cause all online games to become monthly sub based
It invites the federal government into my living room when "nothing serious" was at stake to begin with
It doesn't benefit me at all, I already know what a service game is
>>716270179That's fine. The publishers will pay them
>>716257917 (OP)>So, i do not understand this thing or whatever>*proceeds to give out retarded uninformed opinion*Nigger at least do the homework of the thing you want to blog about
>>716270923Europe doesn't operate in the same princibles as USA, thats why we dont have labels on keyboards not to eat it and in microwaves not to put babies inside.
>>716268891>Requiring servers to run.Remember when EA claimed SimCity needed to be online 24/7 because only their servers could handle the intense calculations and simulation, only for them to not only be proved wrong in the first week of launch, and then a year later actually add full offline mode?
>>716270735Who?
The developers when their game is still up?
You do understand how volatile monthly subscription games are? There's only about 3 in existence that have managed to flourish, and even they are a dying breed.
The fans won't be charging anything as that violates intellectual propertly laws.
>>716270761You could already just not play them. That was an option the entire time.
>>716270420I didn't say I want that.
They should have either
>Date for when the service/access ends and making it clear on storecpage that you are buying limited access for a service, not a productor
>Leave the game in playable state after their support endsI prefer latter of course. Simple patch with removal of online connection requirement goes far. Remember, this would be developed as an end of life plan along the initial game development. Also releasing server binaries or something similar for own server hosting would be a better solution. Many old games can do this already, and MMOs as well. Valve games especially are known for community servers.
It isn't impossible or hard when developed along the game itself.
RIGHT NOW we have the worst scenario. Absolute uncertainty what happens and strange EULAs that sometimes demands you as a consumer to destroy your copy of a game after x time etc.
>>716270991>when "nothing serious" was at stake to begin withSee
>>716270919. You're an idiot if you don't understand what's going on. Your single player games WILL be turned into a "service," because that's what the global entertainment hegemony wants.
>>716270793Remove what? You don't own anything but the hardware.
>>716270829You'll survive.
>>716270504Unless your making an MMO, I don't see how people would pay for a subscription for a single player game. I know I'm not doing that.
>>716257917 (OP)Obvious company shilling. Do not engage. We already won, we just gotta keep pressure when we are close to something happening.
>>716271018SKGroids are just doing the runaround of saying that Big Corp is doing something illegals and they’re entitled to refunds.
If this is true and not a desperate cope, there should be lawsuits enforcing that regulation.
>>716271145anyone who buys an instance of a software product owns that instance of the software
>>716270949The simplest of two things is the most likely of two things
>>716271071I just won't play them if they are subscription based. One time payment and I will
It's up to the publishers to decide which model they use and think is going to get them more money
>>716271137>Your single player games WILL be turned into a "service," because that's what the global entertainment hegemony wants.Correct but its more like the investors and moneymen in the industry do not understand anything about games. They want to see number go up, if someone achieves that they want to copy- and if other money men say that numbers go up with X or Y, they go for it.
Most smaller studios and startups get money from VC where they are just as retarded and look at the same number go up logics.
>>716271057>Who?The publishers and developers you just told were going to jail for charging up front fees for a game that could die at any time.
>>716271201Its relatively new (2022) and very much hidden, EU is a byrocratic nightmare.
Besides only ones who can benefit from it are customers and as I said since the law operates on different pricible - you cannot be compensated more than the harm. And if the harm was losing access to your 50€ game, thats about the maximum you can get.
But, that still leaves Star Citizen, where plenty of people could sue to get their money back and it would totally be worth it...
>>716271253Sorry but one time payment online games are now a poor business decision since it's illegal for your game to fail earlier than what you predicted. They will bypass this risk by charging monthly so they only need jeed to predict one month out.
>>716271201>there should be lawsuits enforcing that regulation.People don't have time, energy, or money to sue a huge corporation. Especially when they have huge lawyer army of their own and can drag you to point of poverty with years long legal battle.
Better to just have proper regulations.
>>716271039You never played that game
I did, and programmers hacked it and released a patch for people to play it offline.
Because American regulations demand that users break the system to make it work, the modders were lauded as heroes, no need to cry for government over that game.
Not a good example.
>>716271215No they don't. You can't own digital games which is all PC has.
Part of why the big companies in games industry are pushing for these crazy service games and license games and gatcha monetization is because they have lost all efficiency and sense of scope. When a game costs 400000000$ to make, its impossible to recoup and to even try you have to go the most agressive money milking path imaginable to even pretend you could.
>>716271429If they could make more money with a subscription model, they would be doing it today
>>7162690031: your creative freedom to do what? Arbitrarily tie a game to a server so you can engage in planned obsolescence?
2: whatever creativity you had going on will go out of the window once the game shuts down. And don't try to pull the "it's art, it's meant to be a temporary experience" because you're selling a product for money.
>>716271591It was more consumer friendly to charge once and call it good.
>>716270923Dawngate isn't an MMO
Age of Empires Online isn't an MMO
Battleforge isn't an MMO
Hellgate London isn't an MMO
Tribes Ascend isn't an MMO
Splatoon isn't an MMO
Nosgoth isn't an MMO
Loadout isn't an MMO
GunZ: The Duel isn't an MMO
Heroes of Newerth isn't an MMO
Drift City... is a pseudo MMO.
I've played a shitton of dead games resurrected by fans. I don't understand what's "clout chasing" about SKG. These games wouldn't have to be resurrected by fans if the devs did their due diligence. Any money used on these games was lost when they were still official. That is the epitome of a "scam"
>>716271476Or you can just fish for attorneys for a class action lawsuits, or “Collective Redress” as Europoors call it.
>>716271482I will give you an example then.
BF2, BFV and BF2142 (at least) are being run on commonity servers. DICE has not officially said they can do it, but their acceptance is known.
At any point in time EA can send DMCA and pull those games down, like Blizz did with Wow classic private servers. There is even some motivation for it listed in the Lobbying group response to SKG.
With end-of-life plan, it could be as simple as "sure, you can run these old games forever."
>>716271667>your creative freedom to do whatTo create freely
>>716271563>game does awful>lay off 40 gorillion employees>want to make another game>hire another 40 gorillion employees for double the costTruly is a mystery why this shit industry wants people to pay perpetually for games.
Shit like this is what makes people lolberts. They see corporations jewing you, and because it doesn't have a government stamp on it, they give a thumbs up. Bet this dude thinks Visa and Mastercard are "based" for taking all those games off of steam. After all, don't like it? Just create your own banking system.
>>716271324They're free to do that. At least then players will know that the service can and will end some day, not the grey area it currently is.
>>716271671Come on, at least come up with something believable
>>716271778That's their decision to make.
>>716271501why would you even attempt to say this like it's true? in most jurisdictions the legal precedent for ownership of a software instance, or the code it's based on is primarily determined by copyright law wherein a developer owns the ip but sells instances of which ownership is given to the purchaser, and it's been this way for a decade
https://web.archive.org/web/20190805133251/https://publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/eu-court-when-you-buy-software-you-own-it
>>716271758>cherrypicking outliersYou assume I’m ignorant of what was posted.
Go back to KiwiFarms, or Plebbit or whatever place accepts bad daith arguments.
>>716257917 (OP)>I think the only problem here is that the devs/publishers/stores dont properly say it is a license.Wrong. Communication is not the problem. The problem is that they terminate your access to the game whenever they feel like it. That is exactly like a car company stealing your car after they think you've owned it long enough. That is not okay and needs to be made clearly illegal.
>>716271796We have laws so that people can be protected from harm. Live service games are harmful to consumers. If what you're selling is harmful to people then it should be illegal.
And no, it doesn't need to literally kill you to be harmful. Live-service slop harms the average person to the materiel benefit of corporations.
>>716257917 (OP)The fact this is even needed to start to force the game industry to do any effort to preserve the games says everything you need to know about the game industry.
>>716271813Old talented developers left to do their own thing:
Retired due to massive income
Got bored of the slop the company was making
Pushed out by WOKE agenda nepotists
New developers either arent as good or are not reaching the correct positions in the companies. That leads to Directors like Corinne Busche who self-inserts and ruins the product so hard, that while its true that their contribution might have gotten the game launched - it might as well not have. Seriously causing problems for Bioware. (One more fail and Bioware is gone)
>>716271869I would rather pay one time fee up front than monthly.
>>716271873You just finish telling me you wouldn't buy a sub based game simply based on the fact that it is a sub based game.
>>716271958And you played your cards. I appreciate you being a foil so we can have another SKG thread to steel man arguments.
>>716271936absolutely brutal
five years of grinding away with zero viewers, to suddenly making it big, and then to immediately fall back down half of your audience (and falling) throwing it all away for nothing
at least we already know he is happy to stream to nobody so we'll probably get at least another five years of lolmilk from this lolcow
>>716271958I am not cherrypicking, I only spoke of games I've played in the past myself AND the resurrected counterparts.
https://stopkillinggames.wiki.gg/wiki/Dead_game_list
you can find all the dead / resurrected games here
What did I say that was bad faith? Quote me the part and we'll dissect that thoroughly
Also, answer the question, what is "clout chasing" about SKG?
>>716257917 (OP)What you buy is not advertised nor implied to be a temporary product. Even in the case of California forcing things like Steam to state you are not buying a game but a license the advertising for said product, the perception of that product, and the actual way you go about buying said product is treated as if you are buying something to own it instead of functionally renting it. At no point are you treated as if you are paying for a temporary service, you are buying a product.
>Lets say you have a license to a cleaning serviceThis is already an incorrect analogy as you pay for a subscription service that is implied to be a temporary deal.
>But why shoult there be a required to do it. Because the alternative is piracy. Would you rather have a product you have sunset but can still sell on a storefront or a product you can't do anything with at all that people have to turn to piracy to play? Any argument you can think of that is against the movement makes zero sense because it's a net positive for consumers and the companies. For the consumers they gain a product that will remain usable despite being sunset, and for the developers they will still make money from FOMO during its existence and then afterwards for a standalone version they can continue to sell.
>>716272018>Live service games are harmful to consumers.No they fucking aren't
So why are there so much seeething threads about SKG now? Where were you (((guys))) when it wasn't doing as well?
>>716272194He is most assuredly more narcisistic than most, which might also be a requirement to make it as a content creator.
But that same narcisism when exposed drives people away, its EXACTLY like how it goes outside of internet IRL. Its quite fascinating actually.
>>716257917 (OP)I get the idea of this movement
>"we want to know exactly how long a game will last after spending money on it"same idea as like an adobe license, or a netflix subscription, but I don't think trying to push the issue is a good idea. People generally despise those types of subscriptions and have been very happy with the video game model of 1 time up front fee and then support until the game is dead. Like do people actually WANT mmo subs for their yearly call of duty, fortnite, etc? do you want to pay $60 for a game and then lose access after 2 years because periods of accessibility were mandated and letting things go until they die is seen as skirting around the rule, so it's not allowed?
I just don't understand the objective here, it seems like we have a good thing going and people who want game servers to actually exist forever have no idea what the thing they are signing is actually about
>>716272117Leave the trickery to the Jews, Saar.
>>716272045Then it wouldn't be a subscription based game, and subscriptions are services.
Selling a game with one time fee and not telling people that the game will stop functioning at a random date is what needs to change. They're still free to kill any games, as long as they disclose that upon purchase.
Then people can decide whether to buy a dying game or not.
>>716272328no? people don't want that, and will probably not buy it. which means devs have to make games that can be played after purchase, you know, the entire point of the initiative?
>>716272328That is literally not the point of the movement. The point of the movement is to allow single player and hosting options for games once they get sunset by developers.
>>716272205>ai overview>mobile screenshot>hides the promptnice one, i'll be sure to take your uninformed opinion seriously on legal matters
>>716272279NTA but it can be argued that they can be.
Its also harmful to the industry itself for much of the same reasons.
Games as a service drive towards taking all the attention from the players, hooking them with every kind of psychological hook and trick to spend their time on just this one game. And even as players have free will - its an observable effect how people play less games than before due to being so caught up in their GAS.
>>716257917 (OP)>i do not understand the Stop Killing Games movement or whatever.You're a moron
>Lets say you have a license to a cleaning service and for that they come everyday to your house and clean it. If the company can no longer clean your house, why shoult they be forced to buy you a cleaning robot, or teach you their cleaning technic or whatever.You are a fucking moron. The analogy is closer to a company selling a Roomba that has to connect to the company's server to even function at all.
>My point is the devs shoult say it is a license more clearly even though they say it people just dont read it and agreeCuckifornia already passed the law that forces digital outlets like Steam to let people know that you're not buying anything.
You already got what you want you fucking shitbrained moron.
>>716272194The funniest part of Jason is that he actually was a master class in social engineering by convincing his audience and the entire streaming community that he was some sort of wholesome 100 chungus hacker streaming dev for a few years too bad his narcissism won out in the end.
>>716272305unironically it's because pic related
>>716272561Glad to be done replying to you.
>>716272305They thought it was over at the start of this month when there was only 330k signatures, they were already celebrating their victory
but they got too cocky, now they're trying to grasp at straws to bury the initiative under lies and deceit
this train isn't turning around, it's full speed ahead, all of these dishonest, ubisoft indians are getting mowed down
>>716272580To add to this, most anons here have at some point logged on to a game to "do the dailies" or similar, while not really feeling like playing the game. Just a second job. - That is one of the symptoms of the games trying very hard to keep people playing. Thats what designers in the industry spend their time on figuring out how to do.
>>716267872>so does>ok and>what ifholy shit fucking kys nigger
>>716272749i wholeheartedly accept your concession, you really backed yourself into a corner there, it was a bold debate strategy, im sad to see it not work out for you this time
>>716264187>it can stop working whenever Ford wants to shut it offNTA but that's how Tesla's work and I'm pretty sure some of those shitty high end Italian cars too. That fact shit like that is legal at all is crazy to me.
>>716257917 (OP)GamerGate slop 2.0
>>716272205GOG allows you to download an offline installer for a game you bought
and that installer functions outside of your GOG account, that's why it's so easy to pirate GOG copies, they just share the installer
so any game you buy from GOG, you virtually own permanently. Just don't lose that installer.
>>716272878So we're gonna win again?
>>716271936>slow death of Jason's streaming career will be farmed by Sloptubers for years to comeI can't think of a better fitting end for a lying furryfag
What's the point of still seething about SKG when it passed the goal weeks ago? Do you think if you seethe hard enough it'll suddenly be invalidated kek
>>716272506And if the game is a multiplayer only online game? Are you making multiplayer only online games illegal? Because that's fucking retarded as shit and will never pass.
>>716258189does anyone have the fpbp of the kid (fpbp) punching OP 30 feet in the dirt
>>716272963They want to be contrarians.
Interestingly a lot of the games industry is also going against SKG even though it can only hurt them. They should either shut up or support it.
>>716272973No? The point is to allow players the option to host the games themselves. Such as private servers. Did you even read the website?
>>716272494>Selling a game with one time fee and not telling people that the game will stop functioning at a random date is what needs to changeFor who? Not me certainly. I am aware of the inherent risk and accept it. I am intelligent however, so I could see how our opinions differ on this matter.
>>716272679couldn't agree more, it turns out if you just speak enough into a camera people will take you seriously
i do wonder how much of his success can be attributed to youtube pushing shorts so hard, i feel like ive never seen any content of his that wasn't about ten seconds long at most, although that could be because i only see it chopped up and made into webms here
>>716272248You are really angry. Most community revivals are for MMOs and the community projects just prove that SKG is superfluous.
Yeah, you just cherrypicked those games from a list of revived titles.
Yeah I played those games in the past too, when they were popular. I can read trickery.
I don’t believe you’re still playing them right now. I think you’re still bullshitting.
You SKGroids keep spamming that list, yea most of it is still wrong. Unless Diablo and Helldivers is off the list, because another SKGroid assumed those games were inaccessible yesterday, don’t bother me with it.
>>716273087They never do, and you explaining will not change their opinnion. Only seeing everyone else (authority figures) around them support SKG will eventually break the spell.
>>716257917 (OP)>So, i do not understand the Stop Killing Games movement or whatever.Then read the initiative you fucking retard.
If you still fail to comprehend it, read it over and over until you get it.
Thread over.
>>716272861Not really. I'm not conceding and my point still stands. Cheers.
>>716257917 (OP)>So, i do not understand the Stop Killing Games movement or whatever.I think it goes like this
>Shitty game by shitty studio and publisher is released>retards wants to play it madly, for some reason>gets all the redflags possible and warnings from other people online and irl>retard buys it anyway>despite enjoying it game flops>since it was a shitty game by shitty publisher it's not a product but a service>due floping the provider ends the service>retard makes a tantrum despite being warned about all of this beforehand>retards unite (with equally low IQ as collective if not worse)>Stop killing games takes shape trying to use the goverment to make shitty studios to allow retards to play the shitty toy they "bought" to keep "working" despite not being a product but a serviceAs expected online retards will try to dismiss any flaw on it in their attemtp to turn something where the consumer is in the wrong into a crusade of grandilocuent levels on par with human rights n shiet. Just because a retard was obtuse and still paid for The Crew
Surely involving a goverment is going to be an improvement and nothing could go wrong lmao
>>716257917 (OP)They should not be allowed to advertise the games as products for purchase if they have an expiration date. They should be markered as leased services with a contractual end date. Currently they are doing the equivalent of renting you a house but claiming it is a mortgage and you own it. It's fraudulent in spirit.
>>716273087>person who didn't read the movement they signed up for defending a stance that was not taken by said movementclassic
>>716272679>>716273128I always had a weird feeling about the guy, overnight success - some kind of dev. Had a based take the first time I saw him linked.
Next time he was talking out of his ass without no understanding about what he was talking about. I stopped giving his takes any weight there and then. Seeing him now, I feel for him. I've seen a real psychopath ruin everyones lives around him, ending up him ruining his life and there is no cure, he is always going to keep doing it.
>>716272916You can't own digital games.
>>716273126You claim to be intelligent, but you waste your life baiting in a thread about an initiative you have no interest in? Or maybe you're getting paid to be a retard on a random fucking internet forum either way, you are a double-digit IQ serf.
Where was this "inherent risk" 20 years ago? Every online game from back in the day still functions P2P. What happened?
>>716272963It looks like I fundamentally disagree with SKG regardless of how many people I'm up against.
>>716273313It is, though? It's not retroactive, but they are simply asking for future games to be given sunset options.
>>716273235i provided a direct contradiction to your point about ownership, and provided a link that explains the legal precedent, the fact that you said something doesn't make it true, you're simply wrong, and you refusing to engage with me because you're wrong and don't want to accept it doesn't make you right, it only makes your kvetching a concession
thanks again :^)
>>716272328>I just don't understand the objective hereThe entire point is that you know that the servers will be taken down by a certain point before you buy the game. After that happens the devs are forced to have some way to either make the game singleplayer, provide server files so the users can host their own servers, or allow for P2P matchmaking with no servers.
This has literally already been done with many games.
>Marvel's AvengersEoSed two or three years back. Prior to the final patch you could only use skins you paid for online and most missions could not be played offline whatsoever, just the base game main story. After the final patch every single paid item was unlocked for everyone permanently, you could use them offline, all missions except the two raids can be played offline, and the raid missions are now done via P2P if I remember right.
>Suicide SquadEoSed last year. The final patch made the game completely offline.
>Evil Dead: The Video Game, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and Friday the 13thAll games EoSed due to not being able to afford support or lawsuits. Every single one had one final patch that enabled P2P networking and even though the devs aren't hosting servers anymore and despite being multiplayer games you can still start up a game on any of the three games and play with people who are searching for games.
>Mega Man X DiveEoSed a year or two back. Capcom then proceeded to convert the game into an offline version which you can buy that has almost everything.
>Little NoahEoSed after a year and the devs simply redid how they distribute paid content then sold it as an offline version.
>The Battle CatsDevs took a snapshot of the game a few years back, made paid currency obtainable for free daily, and you can buy that version offline on Switch even though it's not EoS yet.
>MultiversusTurned offline, you can edit a save to get all paid content and play all the singleplayer Rift content though multiplayer is not possible even through P2P.
>>716272194>>716272679so basically he got famous out of luck and needed a way to stay relevant. also this whole SKG thing is a just an ego thing, I'm sure he's mostly against it just because he wants to be a leader and not a follower.
>>716273087More hidden sub fees for private servers. Nice.
>>716273402Thats fair and good way to see things. Make up your own mind. However I implore you to think back how much of your opinnion is actually yours and how much of it you took from others - potential bad actors. I am not implying you necessarily did, but having a dead-set stance against SKG sounds extreme. Most based people against SKG tend to have a strong argument, (eg. Big corpos can use the iniative to push regulation that hurts indie) or similar, they are not against the iniative as a whole. Most people agree that you should own what you pay for.
>>716273454>After that happens the devs are forced to have some way to either make the game singleplayer, provide server files so the users can host their own servers, or allow for P2P matchmaking with no servers.you're completely delusional if you believe there is even a 0.00000000001% chance of this happening
>>716263673>Services end so you're not being stolen from.And file copying copies so you're not being stolen from.
>>716263339>It's not about some gay disclaimer, it's about keeping what you paid for.There's no ownership about services when they're involved. The games in question aren't products anymore.
>>716273390>Every online game from back in the day still functions P2P.You can stop baiting me with lies. I'm too smart for that.
>>716273541>needed a way to stay relevant.He's not smart enough for that. If he did not get involved with any drama, he'd be sitting at 10k+ viewers, and making high six figures yearly.
>>716273541I wouldn't call it pure luck, he exploited the fuck out of early Youtube Shorts while constantly mentioning that he worked at Blizzard and spouting surface level tech tips to retards.
>>716264784>Nice. It's already a step in the right direction.The whole reason ross started this movement is so games dont get destroyed. If the movement ends up just being "yeah you can still shut down games you just have to be clear when selling the game that its a service not a good" then the movement is a complete failure for not achieving its primary objective
>>716257917 (OP)>i do not understandSo fucking sick of retarded kids on this website.
>>716273659They will be required by law to do so, that's one of the stipulations for developers to be allowed to release those types of games. Old games aren't grandfathered into this law, only new games after the motion gets passed.
>>716273606Then don't play on a server with malicious practices?
>>716273646I don't think it's extreme.
>>716273695I meant the drama is his way of staying relevant. If it was luck then he can't rely on it to stay relevant forever, hence the drama.
>>716273696but if he'd been streaming for 5 years with barely any success then that sounds like a good deal of luck.
>>716257917 (OP)Reactionary incel petition, didn't sign.
Never will.
>>716273746that's weird, I don't see the law requiring adobe to host activation servers or release activation servers for photoshop 2013. odd, I wonder why that is. surely the reason for that won't also apply to video games
>>716273321that's funny that you say that actually, i didnt immediately hate him the first time i saw him, idk maybe it was some webm of him telling a story about blizzard being fucked or something, i guess that's the thing about psychopaths and sociopaths though isn't it, they blend in with everyone else around them right up until the moment they cant keep the charade up any more
i do kind feel bad for him now because who the fuck wants to be the main character on the internet, its probably hell on earth, but i cant help but reach for the popcorn
>>716273770It's not malicious to not offer private servers.
>>716273870Yeah, that's what I'm saying, the drama absolutely cratered his numbers. In January, he was sitting at like, 20k Twitch viewers. It all started dropping when he turned into a drama lolcow.
Some please make a Mario kart clone featuring Ross on a rickshaw. I need it to happen!
>>716273937You completely misunderstand what I said. If people can host private servers for a game, then simply don't play on one with a malicious subscription system.
>>716273996Ok so you think he would be faring better if he didn't engage in the drama. I disagree, I think he lucked out and isn't sure what he's doing or how to keep the success going, eventually people will be bored of his bs or wisen up.
>>716273906>I don't see the law requiring adobe to host activation servers or release activation servers for photoshop 2013.Because people didn't fight for those rights whereas it's baked into the SKG requirements for games of this nature?
>>716273915I don't know how deep he is in it, from the sound of it - its pretty bad. But the psycho I knew personally clearly was not in control of his faculties. He wanted to be a big businessman but those people don't have time to keep tabs on how long people spend on toilet breaks. Similarly if Thor didn't develop this narcisism on the success of his streaming, but its a part of his psyche - this will keep happening. And its pretty clear it was happening already in his past employments, why he went indie.
>>716264127>Wonder if he'll respond to the blizzard employees coming out to say "Yeah this fucker was a nepo baby that did nothing".wait really?
they trash talked him?
that's kinda unprofessional desu....
>>716274113If you look at his numbers here, they peak at January of this year.
>>716271936 That's right when the WoW mana gem drama started. He's been in a freefall ever since.
>>716274162Well Jason did also shit-talk about blizzard being shit company endlessly.
>>716274061I like this example of choice. That's why I say to simply don't buy service games if you don't like that they could end.
file
md5: 197eee3f0e6531d230ffb1be13a6af26
🔍
>>716273139Angry how?
And there's nothing for me to cherrypick, I have these games installed on my PC right here. I still play them to this day, all these games that were once killed and buried by their own developers, only to be revived by fans.
You don't know shit about these games, nor their popularity at their heyday. I was there when Battlforge shut down their servers, I remember every fucking update, edition added, the game going F2P, card upgrades being tied to PvP, 2 BFP boosters, Age of Empires Online shutting their servers down, Norse civ never being finished, gold edition not giving you all content despite claiming so, Games for Windows Live to login, and with the fan resurrection, the fans giving players map and modding tools to keep updating the game.
That was my first time ever posting that list, because you seem to be so incredibly dishonest, disingenuous and willfully ignorant about games dying.
Read what the list is about before spewing your inane bullshit. Helldivers 1 & 2 and Diablo 2, 3 and 4 are AT RISK once the central servers go down, as there is no end of life plan for any of them.
You didn't even bother informing yourself before making shit up?
>>716274405And services WILL end, it's their biggest certainty.
>>716273332Why and how can you not?
If you have an installer for a game, and it installs the game, you have a copy of the game.
>>716270601Games are not services. Read the EULAW next time
>>716273679Name a game from 20 years back with online functionality that is no longer accessible, since you're so smart, you can prove me wrong with your vast knowledge and intelligence.
>>716274405Okay, you're clearly ESL, but let me get it through your head: the ENTIRE INDUSTRY wants to turn everything into a "service." See
>>716270919 "Well this doesn't impact me, because I always just buy fully released, single player experiences." Within a decade, they're going to try Stadia again, and the tech will be better, and the marketing will be better. They're going to make it so you will pay a subscription to purchase games that are not on your computer, or system. Total control given to the companies.
>>716274531Because you don't have the rights that come with ownership such as lending, selling, and renting. Even with a GOG copy of a game you still technically have less ownership than someone who bought a console copy of the same game because at any point they can sell that copy if they don't want it whereas you can't.
>>716274121>whereas it's baked into the SKG requirements for games of this naturealright anon, here's a challenge for you. find me any sort of official documentation as part of the SKG movement where this is clearly stated. This cannot include any mention of "games being sold as goods" since anyone with 2 brain cells can see that the very first thing publishers will do is relabel game "purchases" to "licenses" (which their EULAs already outline, but no one ever reads) and skirt the law by doing the adobe / netflix / MS office thing
>>716274531Dont forget
Piracy laws rotated ENTIRELY around the "one copy" being the product that you cannot replicate or your are committing a crime.
Now if it turns out that EU agrees that we dont own games.
Not only is Piracy the morally better option - it might even break the case against piracy as you cant really steal something no-one can own.
>>716274531Owning a game and playing a game aren't the same thing. Otherwise you could call piracy ownership.
Steam only sells licenses, not games. With that fact alone, nothing's going to change to PC gaming even if SKG goes through.
>>716274614NTA,
But EXTEEL came to mind, sadly only 18 years old
>>716274635>They're going to make it so you will pay a subscription to purchase games that are not on your computer, or system.stadia didn't require that. they sold games no different than any digital platform.
>>716274614No. Thanks for the offer though.
>>716274656The point of getting the EU to look at this is to nip this level of jewishness in the bud. It's not about technicalities, it's the spirit of what the consumers want. That's why Apple couldn't weasel their way out of the USB situation.
>>716274554>Games are not services.They become partially the moment they have online components. This is another reason why online in consoles or gaming in general outside PC wasn't a good thing or important beyond novelty.
>>716267741and information on when the park closes and for precisely how long your ticket is valid for are both made clear for the consumer... because it would be illegal as fuck otherwise
did you think that one through?
>>716274728They did that change quite recently btw.
And so did many others.
SKG and the california case already made an impact.
>>716257917 (OP)>I do not understand>more words continue after this for some reason
>>716274635>the ENTIRE INDUSTRY wants to turn everything into a "service."Gaslighting isn't an argument. I disagree that this is happening. I'm not scared by your fear mongering.
>Licenses
>Services
>Legal mumbo-jumbo
Video games are a god-given right. Praise be to vidya. You may play them whenever you like during your time on earth or for eternity in God's kingdom. No man has the "right" to deprive you of a video game.
>>716274656>find me any sort of official documentation as part of the SKG movement where this is clearly stated.https://eci.ec.europa.eu/045/public/#/screen/home
>Specifically, the initiative seeks to prevent the remote disabling of videogames by the publishers, before providing reasonable means to continue functioning of said videogames without the involvement from the side of the publisher.It's literally in the second paragraph.
Then on their actual FAQ
https://www.stopkillinggames.com/faq
>We are in favor of publishers ending support for a game whenever they choose. What we are asking for is that they implement an end-of-life plan to modify or patch the game so that it can run on customer systems with no further support from the company being necessary. We agree that it is unrealistic to expect companies to support games indefinitely and do not advocate for that in any way.Two sources of official documentation. It's asking in general that video games that want to be live service or have live service features remain in a playable state after EoS, period.
>>716274836damn, I didn't think my reply through
we're on the same side
>>716274786That's a service being attached to the game. The game itself is not a service
>>716274917I hope this is Ross's entire argument verbatim and he's laughed out of EU deliberation and then kills himself.
>>716274859NTA and I work in the industry, he is correct in that all AAA, investment and money is going towards making games a service. Many games are F2P afteral, but they are just chasing profits.
So far that has resulted in success in other areas of gaming as the spot left by those companies and investors is going for indie and AA. However if we take mobile in, then the non-service games become a laughably small minority.
>>716274773It was a cloud gaming platform where none of the games were on your system. It had a subscription where you'd get higher streaming quality. With Game Pass existing as well, can you not see what the goal here is?
>>716274859Absolute ignorance. "I don't believe this is happening. The man planting his butt cheeks over my plate is NOT going to shit on it." Game Pass to Stadia to a future where you subscribe to make purchases and download nothing, because everything will be in the cloud.
>>716274636I can play the exact same game that you do, I can copy it infinite times to other systems and I can even burn it onto CD's which become identical to your "physical copies"
How does someone's burnt copy magically become less legitimate than the burnt copy of a corporation? Is there some kind of satanic ritual that imbues the CD with the soul of the game when it was done under the company's payroll? The physical material is the same, so is the digital data. Sure, you can argue that the CD is missing a sticker, but if you add that, it's no different.
So what is this magic you speak of, that makes a physical copy different from a digital copy, or a physical copy made from that bought and paid for digital data?
>>716274719Well, you do own a pirated copy. That is the very definition of "ownership", you are in possession of something that you can do with as you please.
Now you buy a game from a legitimate source and it ceases to function within a few years of owning it. Where's the "ownership" in that? Where's the right to repair?
>>716275057>It was a cloud gaming platform where none of the games were on your system.that ship already sailed with digital games that depend on the seller's platform. You don't own a disc on your shelf anymore, it's all tied to the digital marketplace, you rely on their survival and you can't transfer ownership of the games. And unlike the other digital storefronts, stadia actually had a reason to charge/take a cut(they provided the hardware).
>>716274465>here’s the gamefilesCool, you’re a datahoarder. Congrats.
That doesn’t mean you touched them.
Age of Empires online is kept alive by their community, I get that. AoE2 survived because of Voobly and GameRanger.
I have dead games from F95 too, should I show those files to prove I’m an honest gamer too?
Aside from maybe Battleforge, I doubt you actually played the other games, but cool that you downloaded them, congrats.
“At risk” doesn’t really fly with me, since companies can’t stop people from modding games to keep online services active in America anyways. Your cult taught you to fear FOMO really well.
>>716274769https://lutris.net/games/exteel-project-endless-waltz/
>>716274636I do have the rights, and a boiler plate warning doesn't change that
>>716274728We'll see if that holds up under new laws. EULA doesn't override EU law
>>716275237You are clearly an older anon, then you must know that what you say is not true.
Doesnt matter what nationality you are, Nintendo will still make you stop touching their games. Thats the same for EVERY developer and publisher, if someone doesnt do it - they CHOOSE not to.
Lost technology is and will always be a bullshit argument.
You designed the software, you have design meetings to decide what goes into it vs what doesn't. Then again, as I've learned, the games industry is full of fuckers that rely on legacy code and don't even know what work goes into a game engine anymore.
>>716275227God, you don't fucking get it, do you? You don't even download shit. It's all hosted elsewhere. You have zero control, and zero agency, and that's what they want. They want to take a single player game away, because they put out something new, and don't want you enjoying what you have? Too fucking bad. Off the "service." The ultimate goal is you subscribing, buying, taking it away from you, and then you buying the next thing.
>>716275063>How does someone's burnt copy magically become less legitimate than the burnt copy of a corporation?Because your burnt copy cannot legally be sold to anyone, given to anyone, lent to anyone, or rented out by stores. You will get sued for copyright infringement unless you do it out of the back of a truck or on a flea market, but then that's still illegal you're just doing it under the table.
That's is ultimately the distinction between ownership of an item and not owning something. Purchases on digital platforms also rely on access to an account to obtain the files to purchase or download the game in the first place. GOG lets you have offline copies but you need the initial download to have them. This also means that you are at the mercy of licensing agreements not falling through and losing access to copies of games which will allow you to download them but not purchase something anymore whereas a physical copy of the game can still be bought despite this.
As a digital "owner" of the game you have less rights, availability, and ownership than any official physical copy in the eyes of the law.
>>716275328>I do have the rightsIt is literally copyright infringement to sell a GOG copy of a game, put it on someone else's computer, or do anything that's not personal use of it which isn't the case with physical copies of games purchased from a storefront.
>>716274781what jewishness though? The Crew, SKG's poster boy for the evil things companies are doing had the following characteristics
>dead game no one plays with active servers for 10 years>6 months warning the game was shutting down>refund to customers who purchased the game 3 months prior to the warning (9 month playable window)??? what's the problem here? You're never getting their server software, no law they make will ever change that. They can rebrand the purchase to say "subscription for 1 year" and then you'll have to rebuy again every year until the servers get shutdown, is that what you want?
>>716275028You also didn't convince me.
>>716275057Neither did you.
>>716275408this is also present in the EU video game lobby's response to SKG, where they say in no unclear terms that players being able to keep playing old games is a economical risk for the developers and publishers - as they might not buy the new game.
>>716275196>That is the very definition of "ownership", you are in possession of something that you can do with as you please.No it isn't. That's objectively false and you just made it up right now.
>>716263668That's what DVDs are for yes. You pay one price and can watch it as many times as you want.
>>716275408>It's all hosted elsewhere.same with the video collection of digital games that you "own". well actually you own zero games(steam sells you licenses).
>They want to take a single player game awaycan already be done on every digital storefront, no need to bring back stadia for that. I mean for fuck's sake your digital storefront has already admitted you don't buy games only licenses. In other words you're already living in your nightmare scenario, fucking retard.
>>716275446I still to this day do not understand why the Crew HAD to rely on a central server. Based on what I've seen of the game, the online part is just a couple of other people driving in the overworld. Woo?
>>716275447Thats because you are a contrarian, I doubt there is anything anyone could say to you to change your mind. You've decided - for whatever reason what your stance is and you are keeping it. Its quite normal, and takes either being a fucking useless sheep or some time to reflect to be able to change that.
I really like how you can tell Fagtree lurks these threads
>>716257917 (OP)you can’t just sell a game and then randomly rugpull it out from underneath someone’s feet.
nobody has a problem with paying for games as a service, like with mmos where you pay an upfront fee every month to play. the problem is pretending to sell a game and then a few years later going “haha just kidding get fucked”
>>716275568>same with the video collection of digital games that you "own".No?? They're on my fucking computer. Because I downloaded them. That's just factually wrong.
>>716275021>Ross>Part of the EU deliberationlol, lmoa. What makes you think he's got anything to do with this
>>716275430It is literally EU law that I can resell digital games, this is usually facilitated through the selling of accounts
>>716275446How about you let people host their own servers, like has been the standars forever?
those who keep saying "Steam sells licenses"
sure, but you do realize that you still have the game files- on your computer.. right?
>>716257917 (OP)GOOD
MORNING
SAAAAAAAAARS
>>716275446>??? what's the problem here?It was a game that had an entirely functional single player component, and could be enjoyed without being online, but was taken down regardless.
Reminder, Running With Scissors is based.
>>716275728>this is usually facilitated through the selling of accountsWhich isn't remotely comparable to selling a single copy. That's a technicality at best that rids you access of everything you own instead of just the one item.
>>716275758Nobody said you didn't
>>716275446Where in EULA, TOS or anywhere was it agreed that any of the customers of Crew could only enjoy it when Ubisoft or you decide so. Even if nobody is playing the game right now - doesnt mean someone might want to return to play it later.
The whole point of game conservation is to have access to the old games in some manner.
Almost nobody plays original Dune 2, should we scrub it from the internet?
>>716275857See
>>716275568 This guy seems to not understand that.
>>716275012The service is bound to termination which effectively affects the game it is attached to making the game losing its capacity to be a product as it should and becoming more a service which leads to the game not functioning despite people paying for it.
>>716266379>at best the Live Service genre ends, at worst multiplayer goes back to the times where you need to open ports and type IP numbers.this is a win/win for me
>>716275905>Where in EULA, TOS or anywhere was it agreed that any of the customers of Crew could only enjoy it when Ubisoft or you decide soLiterally (yes LITERALLY) every single game EULA in existence has this line in it
>>716275012>>716275927EU digital goods directive outlines in a pretty good way. The end result of the product must fulfil the expected (of the original product or compared to competing products) function or the customer can one-sidedly terminate the contract and demand a refund.
Anyone else hoping that this will lead to more discussion around digital ownership? Vidya is something simple, but most people can understand the concept of. This could lead into real talks on what should be considered SaaS or not.
>>716276032Good, then its really easy for you to show me an eula with the end date of a game, or a period of time you get to play it.
>>716275832Sure it's a technicality. So what? Companies like abusing loopholes, we already knew that
>>716266379I genuinely don't understand how zoomers like this are so retarded, with the internet at their fingertips.
Do you not remember video games prior to 2020 or something? Private servers, public servers, company controlled serveds...all of this was the standard. It wasn't technical wizadry as rare as a UFO sighting. It was normal. You're acting like the current, incredibly bizarre, policy of just turning off people's property remotely is normal, when it's in fact the anomaly.
>>716276104And after you fail to find this.
Keep in mind that the product has also have had to be marketed as such - since EULA is not binding if it breaks EU law, which it does in the case of removing a product without refund.
The EULAs can be forced to change
"data hoarder"
so this is as far as your bait goes
what a fucking waste of air, time and space you are
I just happened to "hoard" a handful of very specific games to show in an internet argument that I have dead games on my PC? My, the stars have aligned for this day to come!
It possibly couldn't be because I actually play the games, I just happened to download these games out of spite against you. Wow, what are the odds!
>>716275907I'm not seeing where he said you couldn't play your games
>>716267208This is blockbusters fault btw. After they started renting games, they changed a law that had served humanity well for fucking thousands of years, and then introduced the concept of purchasing licenses.
>>716275927>losing its capacity to be a productIf the sale of gasoline was banned tomorrow, a car will still be a car
>>716276165>So what?The point is that you as a digital "owner" of a game have to jump through significant amounts of hoops compared to a physical copy owner, have less rights than a physical copy owner, have less access than a physical copy owner, and can do less than a physical copy owner. You "own" a digital copy in the most barebones sense compared to a random person going to eBay to buy a copy of something like Assassin's Creed 3.
carlos
md5: c570970a724e9698ab3657d0bdfcbe5f
🔍
>>716276274>"data hoarder"Better to data hoard data than to date a whore
>>716276104>then its really easy for you to show me an eula with the end date of a gameThat can't happen since the future is impossible to predict. SKG wont get that to happen by the same logic: it's impossible to do that.
>>716268006>Expecting Blizzard to release server files for a game like WoW is just kind of silly.Weird. Because they already have private servers and always have.
>>716276468it's extremely easy to offer a one year license for software, and plenty of outfits do that today, you're simply retarded
>>716276326>It's all hosted elsewhere. <- anon arguing in favor of SKG>same with the video collection of digital games that you "own". <- anon arguing against SKGThat second anon is saying that Steam games aren't hosted on your computer. That you seemingly don't download anything off of Steam.
>>716275508I have a copy of a game on my PC.
Is that copy not there?
Weird, I can make infinite copies of it, but you're saying it's not real?
How does illegitimate copy of a game make it less "real"?
When I say, "do as you please", I am obviously not talking about reselling, because it's not my intellectual property to begin with, but I do own the copy of the game. I can make copies of it for my own personal use, I can mod it, I can delete it, I can break it, I can play it.
So tell me, how is a pirate copy not ownership of a pirated copy?
>>716276387That's irrelevant. A homeless person has to jump through more hoops than me to eat but he has the same right to nutrition that I do
>>716276468they can do that actually, but not in a way anyone who signed the initiative would be happy with. it's called a subscription and MMOs have been doing it for decades. When the game closes the subscription is no longer available for renewal
>>716276534Enjoy your one year subs then. I won't, since I don't support SKG.
>>716276596Are you trying to argue that if SKG wins, there will just be a bunch of subscription model games?
>>716276596Normalfags are getting subscription service fatigue, so if companies got that route with every game moving forward, that's going to backfire harder.
>>716276468It could happen if the game didn't have an end date. Games can function without services
I can't wait until they start doing this with cars
>No I'm sorry we have discontinued this model and will be shutting it off
>Please return your vehicle to the depot as reselling is against our EULA
>>716276535Go on your computer and make a copy of a file. Now give that copy to a friend. Your friend has the copy, not the source.
>>716276591>That's irrelevant.It's not, because you ultimately have less rights and options. That's the whole point regarding ownership. Can you right now buy Assassin's Creed 3 (Not the remaster) on PC without resorting to piracy if you haven't previously bought it? When you buy it can you sell just that game itself and not your entire account? You can legally lend it to a friend via Steam if you buy it at least.
>>716276613or i could just simply not buy games with stupidly short guarantees of service
>>716276596I would be happy with that. If your game is a subscription service, then I will know clearly whether I want to subscribe or not.
>>716265705Imagine being so fat and retarded the only analogy you come up with is disneyland lmao
>>716276181Hey remember Gamespy?
What did Gamespy do anyway?
>>716276764Okay, so this is some kind of crazy fucking schizo autism. Because I can't literally alter every aspect of a game, I don't have a copy of it. This itself ignoring the entire original point of the conversation about cloud hosting. This is an entirely bad faith argument from a deranged person.
>>716276678if that is the only legal avenue provided, yes. They may bundle it like netflix / gamepass to make it more palatable to normans, but games are never going to be sold as products with transitions to singleplayer only / released server code, that is just a fantasy by people with an infantile view of the world
>>716276770Can you right now buy Superman 64 from a licenced retailer? What does purchasability have to do with it?
>>716276750Considering stupid shit like BMW charging a subscription for seat warmers, a fucking physical part of the car that is already installed, I wouldn't be surprised.
Line goes up mentality has ruined fucking everything.
>>716276540You don't have legal ownership. If someone came into your house and deleted your files you wouldn't be able to sue for damages specifically relating to those files since you didn't lose anything you owned. You had copies from somewhere else. Same goes for Steam.
>>716276379>Some faggot starts Stop killing cars movementI totally see it happening at this point
>>716276957... and that's fucking bullshit hence why we are trying to get attention over digital ownership.
>>716276941>Can you right now buy Superman 64 from a licenced retailer?I don't need to, that's the point. Because someone owns a copy of Superman 64 that I can buy off of eBay.
>What does purchasability have to do with it?If you had true ownership of a copy you should be able to sell it to someone or buy a copy even if the game isn't being licensed or produced anymore and also sell it yourself in the same vein.
>>716276596And this is what I fear.
>>716276803Suddenly being a smart consumer is an argument? Where was this when you could simply not buy service games?
>>716276931Incredible. How many subscription games can you think of right now? Popular ones. I can think of World of Warcraft and Final Fantasy XIV. A whopping two. In the 2000s, there were a deluge of subscription games that all fell to F2P, because it's an inherently unpopular model, unless you are THE game to play.
>>716277013There's not digital ownership; you don't own non-tangibles, you merely have the impression of it.
>>716276905Glad to be done discussing this with you.
>>716277087>you don't own non-tangiblesThen what the fuck is IP laws protecting?
>>716277129I'm sure you were happy to have anyone talk with you, because you're clearly mentally ill.
>>716277060have you forgotten about battlepasses and their extreme popularity? The subscription model is way more tolerable than people like to think, it's just wrapped up under a different name
>>716277146*are, let my ESL slip temporarily.
>>716277037Nobody has the legal entitlement to buy non-essentials that they don't own. You're on a tangent. We're talking about rights, not capabilities
>>716277038currently publishers dont provide any guarantee of length of service, if they are forced to make public how long they will support a game, then i can actually be an informed consumer
>>716277013>digital ownership.Isn't a thing. They would have to give you physical representation of the game. At that point it's physical game and not a digital game.
>>716277205Those are optional purchases. You are suggesting that to skirt this EU ruling, these games would HAVE to have a subscription, right? How many mandatory subscription games are popular?
>>716277242Why not?
>Because the law...Laws are designed to be revised and changed numbnuts.
>>716277087>you don't own non-tangiblesFinally someone who agrees that intellect isn't property
>>716257917 (OP)Chances this is a honeypot for the EU to classify gamers as a far right hategroup and arrest all signatories?
>>716276750They discontinue manufacturing parts for older cars already so that's not too far off at the rate we're going.
>>716277146Self-explanatory; Intellectual property (creator or owner of it), the creative idea that gave shape to the products to own from it. There's a huge difference between owning the IP and owning a product from it. Digital is nothing but a form of paying for air
>>716277236>Nobody has the legal entitlement to buy non-essentials that they don't own.They do, First Sale Doctrine.
>We're talking about rights, not capabilities.I'm not the original guy you were arguing with about rights and all that, I've simply been chiming in that a digital copy has less rights than physical copies due to how you are unable to do basic things that a physical copy grants you. You own a game in a basic sense in that you yourself and only you can play that game, but anything tangential such as purchasing it after it has been removed from storefronts, selling it, and so on aren't really allowed for a digital "owner" without jumping through hoops if it's allowed at all. Digital copies aren't true ownership, they're locked down ownership.
>>716277239>currently publishers dont provide any guarantee of length of serviceAnd since they can't, since the future is always uncertain, and since you're aware of this fact about service games it should shape how willing you are to participate in purchasing one. Glad to finally beat this into your dimwitted skull.
>>716277418So is the idea of owning... well, an idea.
They are both intangible.
Both have some form of physical representation (The files on the computer).
Both can be "stolen".
>>716277431they absolutely can, and many sellers of software licenses already do this, you know, like adobe, who have been doing this for quite a while now
glad to finally beat this into your dimwitted skull
>>716277421>First Sale DoctrineGod fucking damn anon. Buying is not selling. You don't have the inherent right to buy something
>>716277298Sounds like you have everything figured out. Don't let my clearer understanding prevent you from enjoying your copies of games you don't own but can still play.
>>716277421>digital isn't true ownershipthat may be the case in the us, but in the eu this has been settled by case law for at least ten years
>No, you can't own something because it is intangible and the law says you don't.
>No, you can't take my IP because despite it being intangible, the law says I own it.
>>716277572NTA. What do you ultimately want or believe? Do you want everything to move to physical purchases, or are you of the belief that licensed-based purchases are good?
>>716277396Fortunately they can't send a cease and desist to the third party fabricating replacement parts
>>716275363Nintendo is staunchly anti-pirate, but if you own in their product, at least in the United States. They can’t touch you.
Emulator communities fucked up after getting a big head about distributing Switch copies of Breath of the Wild that traced back to them. That’s their fault.
If I already own a copy of Breath of the Wild, which I do, fuck Nintendo I’ll play it on PC instead.
We already have established consumer protections in the US that is watched by Right to Repair organizations who actually know what they’re doing. You can do whatever you want to what you own, Nintendo or Steam can’t stop you. Nintendo might sue if you downloaded a ROM from the internet instead of your cartridge but lawyers can just deduce it as frivolous if you own a copy, and US courts don’t want to open that can of worms.
The real challenges are warranties and 3rd party repairs, but SKG is just superfluous in the grand scheme of things.
However, if SKG actually wants to do something productive AND effective, they should fight Nintendo and other publishers that can have your digital library rendered inaccessible if your account has been banned or deleted.
They can start with League of Legends, accounts that cannot access skins they bought, because of bullshit bans for nonsense like BM. I’ll actually support them for that.
>>716277525>they absolutely canThey can not. They can simply bypass it by charging subscriptions.
>glad to finally beat this into your dimwitted skullI already told you the way to bypass the uncertainty is with subs. This was my original argument. You have to be a troll.
>>716277525they can only do that by also providing a hard cutoff and requiring resubscription, something not a single person in support of SKG would want in their video games. If they don't provide that hard cutoff then there is no effective difference between how games are sold now and this theoretical future where you "know" when you purchase expires
>>716277515>So is the idea of owning... well, an idea.No, owning ideas is posible; it's meant to protect creatives. Since the idea becomes products to be sold you can own products from said idea.
>Both have some form of physical representation (The files on the computer).Code is non-tangible. This usual cope argument never flies, the only tangible to own is the HDD, the code is air tier
>>716277841Yes, I am a different person from the one you were talking to. Articulate yourself please. What do you believe in?
>>716277572>>716277642>>716277718>Being retarded trying to make a pointI feel the mindset behind these type of post are zoomers that confuse "owning product you paid for" means owning the IP of the product
>>716276274I have games downloaded from Steam I haven’t touched, what’s your point?
I haven’t touched my uShit account since Anno 1800 was released, but the data is still there.
>>716277839Most IPs are no longer owned by their original creators anymore, who have passed away or signed them away to big companies. It ain't protecting shit right now.
>>716277642And you still can't sell your digital games in the EU because you don't own them. The law is incorrect about this issue. Corporations simply will not provide you with a way to sell your library and that's legal.
>>716277783See
>>716277296 You believe that games will suddenly have a surge of mandatory subscriptions, despite this model failing in the past?
>>716277936Nigger what the fuck are you on about? I have never said I owned the IP, I just want the fucking game I have installed to be usable.
>>716277996Is that a problem for you?
>>716277839>the only tangible to own is the HDDWhat's the difference between the code on the blu ray disk, and the code on the hard drive disk?
>>716278070I think the situation you are proposing would not happen, since I can literally only name two popular mandatory subscription games. The situation you are suggesting is unlikely.
>>716277783it's pretty simple anon
when adobe sells a license for their sorftware they guarantee that it will be in a usuable state for the length of the license you purchase
for some reason you think this is IMPOSSIBLE because you are retarded, it literally exists right in front of your eyes and has since 2011, and yet you refuse to see it
>>716277806the simple way to do it would be to guarantee software would be in a usable state for at least some length of time, be it three months, a year, five years, adobe chooses one year, and sets the length of a license at one year, there is no reason (other than jewishness) that requires this to be the case, they know they are the industry leader and so they set the terms of service in a way that is extremely favorable for their profitability, i really cant see an analogous video game publisher that would ever have a hope of capturing and steering a market like they do
>>716278059>I have never said I owned the IP, I just want the fucking game I have installed to be usable.You paid for a service, not a game if its stops working at any given time
>>716278059This anon is a schizo who thinks if you don't have access to the source code, you do not actually own anything.
>>716263668You are not paying to go to a location outside of your house you colossal retard
>>716278087The DRM ensuring not being able to be tampered. But can be copied and replicated
>>716277986legal ownership isn't solely determined by whether or not you can resell something
>>716278206I kinda get it, I am a FOSS advocate, but I'm not silly enough to think that because something is proprietary that I don't have some basic rights regarding it.
>>716278145You're outlawing single time purchased service games so I predict that subscriptions will be the alternative. The entire problem stated by you is that you didn't know a game could end when you bought it, and the terms are agreed to after the purchase. This is your problem, and your solution to your problem, not mine. I'm a smart consumer.
>>716278352it would not be outlawed, all they need is an end of life plan
i swear you corpo shills get more retardederereer by the fucking second
>>716278352No, you're proposing this as a sneaky workaround for publishers to keep screwing people over, rather than create a sensible end of life plan. What you are proposing is something that proved not financially viable in the past, and you think it will happen, because you do not want live service games to have an end of life plan. For some reason.
>>716278167>when adobe sells a license for their sorftware they guarantee that it will be in a usuable state for the length of the license you purchase>for some reason you think this is IMPOSSIBLE because you are retarded,Nope. I know that adobe uses subs, I know what subs are, I know that subs are possible and the likely alternative if single time purchases are of service games are outlawed. You're confused.
>>716277547>You don't have the inherent right to buy somethingWhat? Yes you do, you have the right to exchange goods such as money for other goods such as games. What you don't have the right is to force someone to buy something. That's what Right of Refusal is for example. You can be sold the item because of the First Sale Doctrine allowing you to buy it at all regardless of the circumstances surrounding it. Ubisoft delisting AC3 on PS3 doesn't stop me from buying AC3 on a PS3 but them delisting AC3 on PC does stop me from buying AC3 on a PC.
>>716277642But even in the EU you can't sell games individually. It has to be the whole account. That's not ownership in the same sense whatsoever. You "own" it in the sense that you lose all access to everything you bought if you want to get rid of it whereas I own a physical game because I can just sell that individual game and am not tethered to some service to access this game or sell it.
>>716278087The code on the Bluray disk is legally provided by the purchaser as-is. They are free to sell it, break it, use it as a coaster, lend it to a friend, or auction it off if they feel like it. They are not subject to anything from the developer after it has been sold and can be resold even if the company is dead, defunct, or otherwise unable to sell the game. Even if the person loses their account they still have access to the product.
The code on the HDD is legally provided for a specific user of that code (The one who bought it) and can't legally be transferred to another party outside of said owner. It is also tied to a specific account, and if it's not tied to a specific account to load it then that specific installer is only granted to the person who purchased it and ownership only extends as far as the availability to download it or transfer it.
You have different rights based on the format.
>>716278461if you know it exists and understand this model of license then why do you keep saying that it's impossible for a publisher to offer this model of license?
>>716278297It's one of the qualifiers. None of the qualifiers are: I can play it, I can mode it, I can copy it.
>>716278461So you think, rather than just allow for games to have a single player offline mode, developers will push for 2000s era subscription models, a failed monetary system, that lost to F2P purchases.
>>716278431>all they would need to do is perform the impossible task of predicting the future. Or use subs a valid working bypass of your problem you are cryign about, not me.
>>716278454>you do not want live service games to have an end of life plan. For some reason.Huh? Subs are the end of life plan. You're guaranteed the game for the rest of the month when the service game gets pulled.
>>716278537I didn't. I said it's impossible for a developer to predict the exact date their game will fail and that's why they will need to go to subs when SKG outlaws single time purchased service games.
>>716278731You are proposing that the only thing developers will do is use a failed monetary system as a spite mechanic, rather than just allow for a functional sunsetting option for games. You are clearly butthurt, and trying to find the least palatable way for things to work out, since you support live services, for some reason.
>>716278594you think that multiplayer only service games should be made illegal. That is fucking insane.
>>716278914No I don't. I think when they're shut down, they should be given an end of life plan.
>>716278815but anon, if they offer a subscription, and for some unforseen circumstance they can't maintain the service, what then? isn't that exactly the same situation?
>>716278842Subscriptions are not a failed system for digital media. You need to gaslight someone dumber than me.
>>716279018They are a failed system for games. Name actively popular subscription mandatory games. I can think of two: WoW and FF14. Battle passes do not count, since the system you are proposing is not optional like those. Mandatory subscriptions were proposed regularly in the 2000s, but were overcome by the F2P model.
>>716278960They are. The end of life plan being your sub works for the rest of the month.
>NOOOOO THEN NEED TO DEVELOP ADDITIONAL OFFLINE SINGLE PLAYER CONTENT FOR MEno they don't
>>716279002Then you're refunded that months sub or a portion of it.
>>716279130That is a random system you are proposing based off of spite, that no one else has suggested, and is unfeasible, since it's not a popular monetary option for games. You came up with it because you are mad at SKG, and want the worst possible outcome.
>>716279130or alternatively, instead of your retarded headcanon, they could just bundle dedicated server hardware
>/v/ on every other subject: Fuck game developers, pieces of shit that want to keep making shit games
>/v/ on skg: Suddenly shills out of the woodwork going "muh developers".
Totally organic.
>>716279125You're seeking to make one time purchased service games illegal so they will go back to subs. I don't care if you think they're popular or not. You should have thought about thet before making one time purchased service games illegal, and offering no other alternative.
>>716278520>They are free to sell it, break it, use it as a coaster, lend it to a friend, or auction it off if they feel like itI wonder if you remember online passes
>>716279213holy shit anon you finally cracked it
that's exactly what game publishers could do if they were forced to take down their service before their guaranteed service until date!
jeez it took like half an hour to get you to finally say this
>>716279360>You're seeking to make one time purchased service games illegalNo I'm not. You are now going into a schizophrenic ramble, because you are furious at SKG, and the idea of sensible game sunsetting. No one else besides you has even thought of this concept, because it's laughable, and terrible PR.
>>716279267>>716279267They can make the game like that if they want, or not. Literally exactly how it works right now.
>>716279250If subs are so bad then why are you outlawing single time purchased games?
>>716279524>If subs are so bad then why are you outlawing single time purchased games?I'm not.
>>716279524>they can make the game like that if they wantyou're quite right, they could do that, some do, it's not a particularly onerous requirement
>>716279360You know, there are multiple ways to sunset a game. I don't know why you're acting like the EU is going to demand a specific method across all games. Coincidentally you insist the method they'll demand is the worst one. I wonder why that is
>>716279429I already knew that. That's what they'll do instead of refunding the full purchase price of every single person that ever bought the game, just the sub for that month. This is because you outlawed products failing, nobody can predict the failure date right, because it's impossible. So they'll bypass this by charging subs. I'm glad you finally understood my argument. Took a while.
>>716279463>No I'm not.You effectively are by forcing devs to predict the future by outlawing early failure dates. Since they can't do that they'll use subs.
>>716279775Or they can just allow for self-hosting, or being able to continue playing the game in a single-player format.
>>716279865No, all the requirements would be to allow games to be played in a single-player mode, or allow for self-hosting.
>>716279775No need to predict anything. Just have an offline patch waiting in the wings for when it inevitably, by your own admission, happens. Only a fool fails to prepare for the inevitable
>>716279554Are you asking developers to predict the future or force full refund of their game? Then you're outlawing single time ourchased service games because nobody can predict the future and nobody will risk their entire business venture on a predicted failure date. You are making it illegal to guess wrong
>>716279775ah yes, the mythical refunds that people like ea are offering currently for games that they sunset like anthem?
>>716279985>>Are you asking developers to predict the future or force full refund of their game?No. I'm asking for live service games to have a single player or self-hosting option after the game sunsets.
>>716279767Because you're getting the government involved, so we'll get the worst of all alternatives.
>>716279985why do you keep parroting this when it's patently false?
>>716280049He's mindbroken, and might genuinely be insane.
>>716279874 >>716279930Self hosting at $19.99 per month. Enjoy your end of life plan.
ohno
md5: 1c2b56349b7ba5824d83a44055f2e70b
🔍
>>716280048oh, it's an ancap
>>716280048So you're just a buthurt lolbert, mad at the concept of even the tiniest government regulation.
>>716280130You're sitting in your chair, mad that the EU is going to look into the matter, and are crossing your fingers that bad things come from it, because even the smallest element of the government doing good goes against your political belief. You'll take a hundred insane corporate fuck ups over one good government intervention.
>>716279990What's the penalty for guessing wrong since you are going to outlaw service games without end of life dates?
>>716279990So you're outlawing multiplayer only games. You're fucking insane. There is nothing wrong with making a multiplayer only game. Not a shred of harm.
>>716280130hell yeah, that would be tight, don't see why it would be so expensive though, i can probably reduce that cost quite a bit by using my own hardware instead of renting
>>716280256>what should the penalty bethat is really beyond the scope of the movement to determine, more a job for politicians and lawmakers, i would assume some kind of fine would be appropriate, or at least a partial refund
>>716280049You can stop replying to me at any time.
>>716280163>cap is govFucking idiot
>>716280208>lolbertNo it's just common sense to not have government intervene when it's not needed. Since I know service games will end I know they're not needed to tell me this.
