Nevermind

[WanzerPilot]

Nevermind

 

[kopiluwak]

so the tldr is "I want publisher to keep server running for my 20yo online game me and half a dozen peoples still play today" kind of request ?

I mean, to be fair, games should all be playable offline, or with LAN alternative, asking to keep server running is a bit silly though.

 

[Raksha17]

so the tldr is "I want publisher to keep server running for my 20yo online game me and half a dozen peoples still play today" kind of request ?

I mean, to be fair, games should all be playable offline, or with LAN alternative, asking to keep server running is a bit silly though.

That is NOT what is being asked in this. No one is asking Publishers to throw money at servers for a few people. What IS being asked is that once they go offline with their servers that people who own the game have some possibility to be able to play a reasonable version of the game. (User hosted servers/Single Player Content/... | whatever is reasonable for a game in question)

Please support Consumer Rights!

 

[suprisedcrankyface]

Greetings Gentlemen, i wish to request your help (If you live in the EU) to sign the
European Citizens' Initiative for Stop Killing Games.
You've probably already seen this floating around a few YouTube videos at this point but we still need to reach 1 million signatures, and the dead line is next month.
While there are currently some misconceptions about the movement this video should clear them all up

You must be registered to see the links

TLDW: " "Stop Killing Games" is a consumer movement started to challenge the legality of publishers destroying video games they have sold to customers "


and here are the links

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

ᴾˡᵘˢ ᶦᵗ ʷᵒᵘˡᵈ ᵇᵉ ᵖʳᵉᵗᵗʸ ᶠᵘⁿⁿʸ ᶦᶠ ʷᵉ ᵐᵃᵈᵉ ᶦᵗ ʳᵉᵃᶜʰ ¹ ᵐᶦˡˡᶦᵒⁿ ˢᶦᵍⁿᵃᵗᵘʳᵉˢ ᵃᶠᵗᵉʳ ᵗʰᵃᵗ ᵖᶦʳᵃᵗᵉᵍᵘʸ ᵐᵃᵈᵉ ᵃⁿ ᵃˢˢ ᵒᶠ ʰᶦᵐˢᵉˡᶠ

You do realize what this is, right?

That is NOT what is being asked in this. No one is asking Publishers to throw money at servers for a few people. What IS being asked is that once they go offline with their servers that people who own the game have some possibility to be able to play a reasonable version of the game. (User hosted servers/Single Player Content/... | whatever is reasonable for a game in question)

Please support Consumer Rights!

Don't buy games that require online connectivity? If people stopped buying then devs wouldn't be shoveling that shit.

 

[kopiluwak]

Don't buy games that require online connectivity? If people stopped buying then devs wouldn't be shoveling that shit.

"I am COMPELLED to buy, I just CAN'T STOP MYSELF"

 

[suprisedcrankyface]

"I am COMPELLED to buy, I just CAN'T STOP MYSELF"

Back when gamers had an ounce of self respect, xbox announced that it would require online connectivity to play games. The blowback they still haven't recovered from. If they did that today but released it with a golden sticker for an extra $20 if pre-ordered, it would sell like hotcakes.

Those of us who said it back then really, really cant give a shit when people who continued to buy that crap, feed the beast & then start to complain when it bites their hand.

 

[anne O'nymous]

What IS being asked is that once they go offline with their servers that people who own the game have some possibility to be able to play a reasonable version of the game.

"This game require an active Internet connection".
The instant you buy a game having these words (or their equivalent depending on the phrasing) in the list of requirement or in its description, you know that the said game will have a limited life span.

"Some of this game functionalities may require an active Internet connection".
If, instead, it's these words (or their equivalent), that figure in the requirement or the description, you know that the game will still be partly playable, at least as long as the OS and hardware's drivers permit it.

Consumers rights are already fully respected. Publishers are not responsible if you don't read the requirements/description before buying, nor are they responsible if you don't care about them and whim like a brat when it hit you back.

(User hosted servers/Single Player Content/... | whatever is reasonable for a game in question)

Ah, the good old, "whatever is reasonable case by case", that famous legal sentence found in so many laws...

Whatever will come from this initiative will not be good for players. Hell, the simple fact that this initiative exist is already a bad thing.
Either there's just a minority that goes with it, and some Studios will take it as a white card to force more online requirement. Or there's enough signatures for it to make it to the parliament, and like the initiative provide no legal solution, not even leads to a legal solution, it's politicians who will make it a law and, thanks to some lobbying, they'll do shit.
Because there will be lobbying... It's not because those who will sign surely do not acknowledge them as being "video games", that mobile games aren't ones legally speaking. And those games rely solely on their mandatory online status (and the ads that come with it) to be financially viable. King Digital Entertainment, among many others, will not let a law cut down millions on its annual benefits without fighting back. And they are way better at fighting back than you'll ever be.

Anyway, even the description of the initiative is incorrect and do not targets the right persons. Publishers... publish. They rarely are the ones who make the game. Therefore, they aren't the ones that should be asked to change their habits.
And, obviously, face to something so poorly phrased than this initiative, if the movement happen to federate enough people around it, they'll use this to enforce even more their control over studios.

This initiative should be named, "Help us kill our favorite hobby by harming video games even more". It would be a way more accurate name.



TL;DR: "Stop Killing Smartness" is a human being movement started to challenge the legality of peoples destroying the average world IQ level by refusing to be accountable for their own decisions.

 

[morphnet]

It's about making things available to the customers who purchased them after EOL.

The companies are doing their part by making it clear what the game requires, the gamers need to do their part by making sure they do the minimum amount of research into what they are spending their money on. If they can't be bothered to at the very least find out if a 1999 game can still run that's on them.

Most consumer goods do have EOL clauses - if you buy a washing machine and the company who made that washing machine went out of business, they shouldn't come to repo your washing machine, but nor should you expect to have them honor repair agreements outside of warranty.

It doesn't help your case using example with absolutely NOTHING in common with the subject matter. Washing machines DO NOT come with a number of different license's attached to them from music to visuals to use of platforms....

And if your argument is - well - you're not really buying the game, you're only buying the license, making even your license useless in the event of a sunset, then YES, that's what this whole initiative is trying to argue against - the fact that gamers should be owning their purchases like any other consumer good.

This makes no sense, software is not like "other consumer goods" plus you are trying to pass ALL consumer goods off under one umbrella which is NOT the case. There are different categories because all consumer goods are NOT the same which is why they come with different warranties, licenses etc.

I'd rather individuals try something because "just don't buy it lmao" clearly isn't working since everyone is just continually getting GAPED more and more every year.

People need to start taking responsibility for their own actions (or in this case lack of action). All this is doing is encouraging people to be more irresponsible and lazy.

(It should also be remembered that the gaming community has stepped up in a lot of the cases and either taken over hosting etc. or provided alternatives like gameranger did when gamespy went offline.)

Sign the initiative if you want. but to say "oh this will just kill games" is disingenuous.

There are MANY options available to gamers, from private hosting to alternative services to offline cracks / mods etc. what's disingenuous is these are problems SOME gamers have created for themselves and are now expecting others to fix.

 

[WanzerPilot]

Fair enough, i concede to most of your points, and i should have come up with a better argument. After thinking about it longer i rescind my support for the initiative. My apologies for being impulsive

 

[anne O'nymous]

It's about making things available to the customers who purchased them after EOL.

And what after this? Make food manufacturers legally responsible if someone by a product after the "use-by" date?
This is still an you problem. If an individual is dumb enough to buy something, whatever, requiring a subscription or an online access, without verifying first that the associated service is still running, it's his responsibility, and only his.

Note the use of the word "service". It's important, because you'll read it often and you should learn what it mean and imply before you try to defend an initiative that address it.

Because as it stands now there is very little to no protections in place (For video games at least) to cover this.

There's protections in place. One can not sell a service that do not exist, and it's precisely what is happening when someone buy a video game requiring only access after its EoL.

Therefore, what should be asked is for an enforcement of those laws, and for publishers (because this time it's their responsibility) to ensure that all unsold copies have been sent back to them the day they close the servers.

things like enterprise level SaaS products in other industries have sensible End of Life policies that either allow you to migrate your data to another platform or have a minimum guarantee of access even post-sunset, like Salesforce.

What is their choice, not something they have the legal obligation to do; beyond the "you can't sell..." I talked about above.

The only law set existing in EU for SaaS is the

You must be registered to see the links

, but this regard their resilience against cyberattack and technical issues. They have the legal obligation to do their maximum to re-establish their service the faster possible in case of cyberattack or technical issues directly affecting them, and the obligation to have a "plan B" in order to switch their service in case of cyberattack or technical issues affecting one of their mandatory partners.
At no time do this address their End of Life practices, nor do this expect them to provide an alternative if they decide to stop their service.

Most consumer goods do have EOL clauses

No, they don't...

- if you buy a washing machine and the company who made that washing machine went out of business, they shouldn't come to repo your washing machine,

There's no law regarding this, it's just called "common sense".

but nor should you expect to have them honor repair agreements outside of warranty.

Could it be because there's just no repair agreements outside of the warranty?
It's a pure rhetorical question, the answer is "yes, it's because of this".

This being said, it's funny how you consider normal that a company have no obligation to repair your washing machine outside of the period of warranty, and use this as argument to explain why video games studio should have obligation to provide a service that will continue to be usable outside of its period of life.
Not only those are two contradictory statements, but they also address two different elements; "good" for the first, and "service" for the second.

And if your argument is - well - you're not really buying the game, you're only buying the license, making even your license useless in the event of a sunset, then YES, that's what this whole initiative is trying to argue against - the fact that gamers should be owning their purchases like any other consumer good.

Well, if it's what the initiative is about, you should tell it to the guy who wrote the description of the said initiative, because he miserably failed at saying it.

But it's time to address the elephant in the room: your clear and constant confusion between "good" and "service".

Video games are "goods" in regard of platforms like Steam (and others); they are a product sold by those platforms.
The dependency to their "ownership control" service online is a borderline issue. European Justice Court have more than once addressed this, mostly on their rulings regarding the total legality of any resale of an "used" licenses.
If one of those platforms cease to operate, yeah, you would be in right to ask it for an alternative, some kind of local server mimicking theirs and telling the software that it can works.

But what you talk about in the thread opening, and what the initiative talk about, is not this, it's "services".
It's not about "hey, let me continue to use the software I own", but about, "hey, let me continue to access the content that the software I own permit me to access".
You can still use the game, it still launch, it still lead to the main menu page. What you can't do, is use this software to access a service that do not exist anymore. And this is absolutely not the same, both technically, logically and legally speaking.
In the same way that you can't sue your barber because it closed his shop, nor can you force him to provide an alternative, you can't sue a video game studio because he closed his servers, not can you force him to provide an alternative.
The software isn't the game and have never been the game. It's the vector used to access the service, that is the game. It's what you bought, a software providing you access to a service, and obviously this access is intended "as long as the service exist".

I'd rather individuals try something because "just don't buy it lmao" clearly isn't working since everyone is just continually getting GAPED more and more every year.

Not my fault if people tend to be more and more stupid with each new generation, in addition to lack the curiosity to learn what they don't know and verify what they think they know.

It's not going to be this rigid set in stone letter of the law "these are the EXACT THINGS WE WANT IN THIS EXACT WAY" because it's only initiative for the EU to LOOK at this and see if anything needs to be done.

Something need to be done, but it's not EU's responsibility to educate EU citizens.

Especially with the insane push to digital only purchases where we lose inherent "ownership" of a physical good i think that we might need to rethink on how we think about this.

You have full ownership over the connected TV (by example) you bought, but this do not imply that the service associated have to be eternal. And in the same way, you have full ownership over the software you bough, but this do not imply that the service associated have to be eternal.
But, anyway, when you buy a video game on Steam (or others), there's no "physical good"...

Sign the initiative if you want. but to say bluntly "oh this will just kill games" is misguided.

It isn't misguided, it's knowing what you talk about. Something that is clearly not your case.

 

[Hagatagar]

Apparently a bunch of Pirate Software fans in here...

 

[WanzerPilot]

And what after this? Make food manufacturers legally responsible if someone by a product after the "use-by" date?
This is still an you problem. If an individual is dumb enough to buy something, whatever, requiring a subscription or an online access, without verifying first that the associated service is still running, it's his responsibility, and only his.

Note the use of the word "service". It's important, because you'll read it often and you should learn what it mean and imply before you try to defend an initiative that address it.




There's protections in place. One can not sell a service that do not exist, and it's precisely what is happening when someone buy a video game requiring only access after its EoL.

Therefore, what should be asked is for an enforcement of those laws, and for publishers (because this time it's their responsibility) to ensure that all unsold copies have been sent back to them the day they close the servers.




What is their choice, not something they have the legal obligation to do; beyond the "you can't sell..." I talked about above.

The only law set existing in EU for SaaS is the

You must be registered to see the links

, but this regard their resilience against cyberattack and technical issues. They have the legal obligation to do their maximum to re-establish their service the faster possible in case of cyberattack or technical issues directly affecting them, and the obligation to have a "plan B" in order to switch their service in case of cyberattack or technical issues affecting one of their mandatory partners.
At no time do this address their End of Life practices, nor do this expect them to provide an alternative if they decide to stop their service.




No, they don't...




There's no law regarding this, it's just called "common sense".




Could it be because there's just no repair agreements outside of the warranty?
It's a pure rhetorical question, the answer is "yes, it's because of this".

This being said, it's funny how you consider normal that a company have no obligation to repair your washing machine outside of the period of warranty, and use this as argument to explain why video games studio should have obligation to provide a service that will continue to be usable outside of its period of life.
Not only those are two contradictory statements, but they also address two different elements; "good" for the first, and "service" for the second.




Well, if it's what the initiative is about, you should tell it to the guy who wrote the description of the said initiative, because he miserably failed at saying it.

But it's time to address the elephant in the room: your clear and constant confusion between "good" and "service".

Video games are "goods" in regard of platforms like Steam (and others); they are a product sold by those platforms.
The dependency to their "ownership control" service online is a borderline issue. European Justice Court have more than once addressed this, mostly on their rulings regarding the total legality of any resale of an "used" licenses.
If one of those platforms cease to operate, yeah, you would be in right to ask it for an alternative, some kind of local server mimicking theirs and telling the software that it can works.

But what you talk about in the thread opening, and what the initiative talk about, is not this, it's "services".
It's not about "hey, let me continue to use the software I own", but about, "hey, let me continue to access the content that the software I own permit me to access".
You can still use the game, it still launch, it still lead to the main menu page. What you can't do, is use this software to access a service that do not exist anymore. And this is absolutely not the same, both technically, logically and legally speaking.
In the same way that you can't sue your barber because it closed his shop, nor can you force him to provide an alternative, you can't sue a video game studio because he closed his servers, not can you force him to provide an alternative.
The software isn't the game and have never been the game. It's the vector used to access the service, that is the game. It's what you bought, a software providing you access to a service, and obviously this access is intended "as long as the service exist".




Not my fault if people tend to be more and more stupid with each new generation, in addition to lack the curiosity to learn what they don't know and verify what they think they know.




Something need to be done, but it's not EU's responsibility to educate EU citizens.




You have full ownership over the connected TV (by example) you bought, but this do not imply that the service associated have to be eternal. And in the same way, you have full ownership over the software you bough, but this do not imply that the service associated have to be eternal.
But, anyway, when you buy a video game on Steam (or others), there's no "physical good"...




It isn't misguided, it's knowing what you talk about. Something that is clearly not your case.

I have already conceded on it and will admit i was a bit impulsive and slapdash and didn't due my due diligence with my initial posting . i will take the L and move on.

 

[suprisedcrankyface]

Apparently a bunch of Pirate Software fans in here...

1) Given your use of this site I hope that is an intentional pun (if so kudos)

2) will also respond to the OP

I have already conceded on it and will admit i was a bit impulsive and slapdash and didn't due my due diligence with my initial posting . i will take the L and move on.

Nice to see you think on it. The movement as a whole is a nice sentiment, but in truth you should be looking for smaller studios you like where their 1 or two titles are their lifeblood & they live or die on their name. Games like No Mans Sky & Cyber Punk if released by a larger studio would have been half-ass patched and abandoned, instead they received massive reworks, overhauls and fixes because of the studios involved & have become some of the best games out there in their respective fields (nomans sky received ANOTHER massive free DLC a few months ago, again).

As a Consumer support good practice with your wallet, and others will follow.

 

[Hagatagar]

1) If you didn't want to harm games you wouldn't be downloading them from a site offering them for free... so for 1, you are being g a hypocrite right now

Pirate Software is a dev studio.

 

[WanzerPilot]

Pirate Software is a dev studio.

Figtree....

 

[suprisedcrankyface]

Pirate Software is a dev studio.

I was editing my post when you responded... so you were not joking?

 

[Hagatagar]

I was editing my post when you responded... so you were not joking?

The best way for you would be to look it up and all the controversies surrounding it.
I won't give anything away because everyone can form their own opinion.

 

[suprisedcrankyface]

The best way for you would be to look it up and all the controversies surrounding it.
I won't give anything away because everyone can form their own opinion.

I know its a dev/streamer, but you do know what this site is, right?

 

[Hagatagar]

I know its a dev/streamer, but you do know what this site is, right?

Spoiler

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

 

[suprisedcrankyface]

Yes... so anyone who forms an opinion in favor of a movement called 'stop killing games' should immediately stop using this site...