People are sitting on PS for giving a completely correct take. I’ve read SKG and even listened to what the petition owners have said. I’ve stayed in the loop which is why it’s so frustrating to watch people with noble intentions cannibalize people for telling you it’s not only misguided but impossible.
Legislation will not compel a dying company to release code that will let any random person breathe life back into it on their own whim. Period.
Upon reading the UK version over again you’re right - it’s even worse. It states that companies no longer be allowed to ‘disable’ games which they often don’t do. They just stop maintaining them until the infrastructure for it disappears.
I expected at the very least gamers would have understood the problem they’re complaining about but I got ahead of myself. The only thing SKG might accomplish legally is to allow third parties to host servers at End of Life but the counter argument to that is cheaters using their own servers.
None of this is thought out. You’re demanding a solution be created AND implemented. This will go nowhere. Pirate Software was right and it’s stunning.
Upon reading the UK version over again you’re right
:)
it’s even worse.
sigh
Why?
It states that companies no longer be allowed to ‘disable’ games which they often don’t do. They just stop maintaining them until the infrastructure for it disappears.
You’re close. Maybe read it again. Or something. I don’t know.
Maybe instead of being the condescending dickhead you and yours project onto Pirate Software, you could instead point out specifics since you’re advocating for it. I’m confident you can’t though since I’m sure you haven’t read shit, just listened to people slobber all over it.
Maybe we wouldn’t have to be such condescending dickheads if you cared to not make up stuff.
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.
That’s the core idea. Publishers should just make sure that after they milked their product it can somehow be run without their interference.
That doesn’t require sources. In fact, this doesn’t even state any method that is preferred. Could they release sources? Sure. They could also release server binaries. They could also patch out the connection to their servers and only leave people with local multiplayer mode or something. They could do whatever. The initiative doesn’t care.
The practice of licensing a product indefinitely but then just disabling it remotely is hostile to consumers. If they really, really want to keep their business model, they should sell licenses that are limited to a certain timeframe right from the start. Selling perpetual licenses and then disabling them without leaving consumers with any means to still access what they paid for shouldn’t be legal and probably isn’t.
Also this right here:
The initiative does not seek to acquire ownership of said videogames, associated intellectual rights or monetization rights, neither does it expect the publisher to provide resources for the said videogame once they discontinue it while leaving it in a reasonably functional (playable) state.
Nobody wants your ip. Just don’t break stuff you sold.
Right. There is no clear solution to the problem, only a demand for a solution.
“They could release sources/server binaries”
At what point? When is a game legally considered dead and a company legally obligated to provide that? What happens if they just shut down prior to fulfilling it?
“They could patch out their servers and leave local multiplayer or something”
Or something? This is what PS drilled into this initiative for. You don’t actually grasp what you’re asking for or understand what legal measures even exist to enforce them. You have a deep desire to go back to the early 2000s where your data wasn’t really hosted on servers, it was just arena shooter and LAN parties.
Games today are not able to curtail to these absurd demands. Not because they refuse to but because the complexity of what they offer is not easily designed to be replaced.
You don’t like the current model but fail to provide an alternative that can replace it. That’s the critique. It’s beyond childish to look at a problem, offer nothing, then get pissed when someone tells you that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
I don’t like that I only own a license to play a game either, but what’s the alternative? If you own the game, they can’t release a patch to fix bugs or it would be a violation of the law for modifying your property. That’s bad.
Right. There is no clear solution to the problem, only a demand for a solution.
Yes. Because that’s how laws work.
At what point? When is a game legally considered dead and a company legally obligated to provide that? What happens if they just shut down prior to fulfilling it?
At the point at which they stop providing that service themselves. “What happens if they don’t?” Yeah duh, what happens if you break a law? Then courts can enforce it. Is this the first time you heard about laws?
You don’t actually grasp what you’re asking for or understand what legal measures even exist to enforce them.
I understand it just well. You telling me I don’t doesn’t change that.
Games today are not able to curtail to these absurd demands. Not because they refuse to but because the complexity of what they offer is not easily designed to be replaced.
Bullshit. Also, as I said, they could just release their shitty server once they shut it down. You’re taking one solution that doesn’t require them to do that that I suggested, assume that games are just too complex for that specific solution and tell me that this assumption (which is also debatable at best) invalidates the idea of playing a game locally. What nonsense.
You don’t like the current model but fail to provide an alternative that can replace it. That’s the critique. It’s beyond childish to look at a problem, offer nothing, then get pissed when someone tells you that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
I provided plenty of alternatives. If publishers or you don’t like it, fine, then come up with your own. Again, laws work like that: they provide guardrails. The idea that people should be able to keep using what they bought has been the core of trade for millenia but suddenly it’s insane to ask for that? What nonsense. Gog sells plenty of current ones without drm, so somehow it is still possible to compile games without attaching a shitty service model. But even if there’s a some shitty game that the publisher absolutely doesn’t want to release after they already milked it beyond profitability (what you say would be impossible, which I still think is bullshit), according to this initiative they could just stop selling perpetual licenses. At least people then know what they’re getting into.
you own the game, they can’t release a patch to fix bugs or it would be a violation of the law for modifying your property. That’s bad.
What the fuck? No! Nobody wants a law that prohibits changing games. Games have been patched since forever. Where did you get that idea? You keep coming up with nonsense that has nothing to do with initiative. Just because a company can’t shut down my car remotely doesn’t mean they can’t repair it! How do you come up with that crap?
No need to be so salty. Maybe instead just read what skg really is about because you obviously have misunderstood it completely.
People are sitting on PS for giving a completely correct take. I’ve read SKG and even listened to what the petition owners have said. I’ve stayed in the loop which is why it’s so frustrating to watch people with noble intentions cannibalize people for telling you it’s not only misguided but impossible.
Legislation will not compel a dying company to release code that will let any random person breathe life back into it on their own whim. Period.
Well I guess then it’s a good thing that the petition doesn’t demand that.
Upon reading the UK version over again you’re right - it’s even worse. It states that companies no longer be allowed to ‘disable’ games which they often don’t do. They just stop maintaining them until the infrastructure for it disappears.
I expected at the very least gamers would have understood the problem they’re complaining about but I got ahead of myself. The only thing SKG might accomplish legally is to allow third parties to host servers at End of Life but the counter argument to that is cheaters using their own servers.
None of this is thought out. You’re demanding a solution be created AND implemented. This will go nowhere. Pirate Software was right and it’s stunning.
:)
sigh
Why?
You’re close. Maybe read it again. Or something. I don’t know.
Maybe instead of being the condescending dickhead you and yours project onto Pirate Software, you could instead point out specifics since you’re advocating for it. I’m confident you can’t though since I’m sure you haven’t read shit, just listened to people slobber all over it.
Maybe we wouldn’t have to be such condescending dickheads if you cared to not make up stuff.
That’s the core idea. Publishers should just make sure that after they milked their product it can somehow be run without their interference.
That doesn’t require sources. In fact, this doesn’t even state any method that is preferred. Could they release sources? Sure. They could also release server binaries. They could also patch out the connection to their servers and only leave people with local multiplayer mode or something. They could do whatever. The initiative doesn’t care.
The practice of licensing a product indefinitely but then just disabling it remotely is hostile to consumers. If they really, really want to keep their business model, they should sell licenses that are limited to a certain timeframe right from the start. Selling perpetual licenses and then disabling them without leaving consumers with any means to still access what they paid for shouldn’t be legal and probably isn’t.
Also this right here:
Nobody wants your ip. Just don’t break stuff you sold.
“The initiative doesn’t care”
Right. There is no clear solution to the problem, only a demand for a solution.
“They could release sources/server binaries”
At what point? When is a game legally considered dead and a company legally obligated to provide that? What happens if they just shut down prior to fulfilling it?
“They could patch out their servers and leave local multiplayer or something”
Or something? This is what PS drilled into this initiative for. You don’t actually grasp what you’re asking for or understand what legal measures even exist to enforce them. You have a deep desire to go back to the early 2000s where your data wasn’t really hosted on servers, it was just arena shooter and LAN parties.
Games today are not able to curtail to these absurd demands. Not because they refuse to but because the complexity of what they offer is not easily designed to be replaced.
You don’t like the current model but fail to provide an alternative that can replace it. That’s the critique. It’s beyond childish to look at a problem, offer nothing, then get pissed when someone tells you that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
I don’t like that I only own a license to play a game either, but what’s the alternative? If you own the game, they can’t release a patch to fix bugs or it would be a violation of the law for modifying your property. That’s bad.
Yes. Because that’s how laws work.
At the point at which they stop providing that service themselves. “What happens if they don’t?” Yeah duh, what happens if you break a law? Then courts can enforce it. Is this the first time you heard about laws?
I understand it just well. You telling me I don’t doesn’t change that.
Bullshit. Also, as I said, they could just release their shitty server once they shut it down. You’re taking one solution that doesn’t require them to do that that I suggested, assume that games are just too complex for that specific solution and tell me that this assumption (which is also debatable at best) invalidates the idea of playing a game locally. What nonsense.
I provided plenty of alternatives. If publishers or you don’t like it, fine, then come up with your own. Again, laws work like that: they provide guardrails. The idea that people should be able to keep using what they bought has been the core of trade for millenia but suddenly it’s insane to ask for that? What nonsense. Gog sells plenty of current ones without drm, so somehow it is still possible to compile games without attaching a shitty service model. But even if there’s a some shitty game that the publisher absolutely doesn’t want to release after they already milked it beyond profitability (what you say would be impossible, which I still think is bullshit), according to this initiative they could just stop selling perpetual licenses. At least people then know what they’re getting into.
What the fuck? No! Nobody wants a law that prohibits changing games. Games have been patched since forever. Where did you get that idea? You keep coming up with nonsense that has nothing to do with initiative. Just because a company can’t shut down my car remotely doesn’t mean they can’t repair it! How do you come up with that crap?