stop killing games Petition

[MarshmallowCasserole]

Hence the reason they will increase game costs by $20 across the board for AAA games.

Let them. It's a buyer's market. AAA live service vidya isn't groceries, demand is fully elastic.

 

[Insomnimaniac Games]

Like I said. I m a pessimist about this movement.

To help assuage the pessimism a bit, there are youtube videos of game developers going over the petition. (Which is just a petition, and not an actual proposal for law). TL;DR, the petition isn't really asking for anything they haven't done before, or are currently doing (ie, spoofing servers for testing purposes). In addition, because this would take actual years to implement, there's plenty of time for hurdles to be overcome. (It's also not retro-active, and would only effect new games.)

That said, I can't disagree that publishers might be fuck bags and try and use it as an excuse. But I don't see that as a reason to stop the initiative. They'll absolutely do it eventually anyway, might as well get something positive for the consumer out of it.

 

[MaxDownZ]

The previous thread seem to have disappeared, and I'll not starts again so I'll make it short:


This petition is what will kill games, period.

It is customers' responsibility to read the game description and requirements, then to understand that what they buy can possibly end at anytime.

This kind of games are a service, what you buy is just the elements needed to access that service, nothing else. And like all services they can be ended at anytime, this in all legality.
By buying such game, you implicitly agree that the service can end and that you'll not have a say on this.

This is perfectly legal, this is covered by the EU regulations and national Laws, and not only there's no reason to change this, but there's also no way to do it.

Neither publishers, nor authorities, are responsible for the lack of understanding of the users. And this petition just demonstrate that many among them have absolutely no idea what they talk about.

This kind of gives a "it is what it is" mentality. Yes it is what it is, but we can always work for it to be better. Yes I understand that's how it is, but it sucks and is it really THAT hard to make it not suck? I've been in game dev and it's not really THAT HARD to make it not suck.

 

[MaxDownZ]

And?

Phillips and so many others, do not support anymore 8 tracks readers, this since so many decades, like the do not support anymore VHS readers. Iomega do not support Zip (2005) and Jazz (2002) drives. Computers manufacturers do not support floppy disk readers since more than a decade, and motherboard manufacturers don't even provide IDE ports for them.
We are millions to have games legally bought that are on floppy disks. Legally we are not allowed to transfer them on another support. And obviously, like there's no more floppy disk readers, legally we can't play them anymore. Do you see us starting a petition to change this? No, we act like responsible adults. We knew, when we bought them, that their life time was limited to the life time of the technology used to store them, and we bought them because we agreed with this obviousness.

Technologies disappear, and everyone see it as the logical result of the time passing. Why should it be different when it's not even about technologies potentially affecting billions of peoples, but about a particular service that affect only few thousands?

Sure, it's fine to stop support. Does philips bust down your door and take away your stuff? No communists kicked down my house and took my VHS reader. The point is, make your product's MVP not based to the availability of some server. This is so disingenious that you might as well be pirate software.

 

[That other person]

Okay I'll be honest here... if I buy an online game and it stays online for 13 years... chances are that I will move on to other games by the time the servers close. However, if I do want to come back to it, or download it again because the fucking game is still AVAILABLE and I see the servers are dead, I do expect to be able to play the game still. You either stop selling the fucking game at one point so people don't buy it three months prior and be understandably pissed, or make sure that shit runs offline.

I understand the anger behind it, and the whole "games as a service" shit truly is some frightening stuff, and now Ubisoft comes out with their new terms, which are complete horseshit. Fuck off, Ubisoft.

A lot of people like to say that this is is to "maintain the quality" or "the cost of making games is high". The first is a fucking lie, way too many AAA devs have dropped turd after turd that are nothing but a cash grab. The second is true... but the money goes into the wrong things, graphics. No optimization, no complete story, no unlockable content, no proper single player at times.

For fuck sake multiple games can't even run well on launch, even if you meet the requirements, but now you also need to be constantly online, which affects the game if your country doesn't have that super cool internet by disconnecting you and then punishing you for it, and at any time they can just be like "ah fuck it, turn it off, we made a new one, let's force them to buy it".

Also... indies, which are carrying gaming like Atlas, don't use even a quarter of the money they spend and still make fun games. Just check out CULTIC. ONE FUCKING GUY MADE THAT. Also, Bright Memory Infinite. Like... seriously. Yes of course it takes them longer, of course they make mistakes, but they are indies, and even then, still kicking ass.

But oh well... frankly I don't know. Laws are made to protect the big people, not the small ones, and customers are the small people, and it's bullshit, yes, that's why I will support this petition, because big companies WILL NOT suffer a "huge loss" as they love to say. Fuck them cash grabbing companies. They have only become so big because ONCE they worried about making good games instead of charging as much as they could for trash.

 

[suprisedcrankyface]

Realistically... It doesn't. Providing the source code proprietary information at the end of a games life costs nothing. The consumer already paid for it.

If you buy a car you don't get the right to manufacture a copy of it, or access to the manufacturers trade secrets.

What is being asked for is not just nothing, it is frequently the basis of future games (and who in their right mind would hand over ANY data in the AI data scraping age).

The amount of mental gymnastics in this thread is astounding.

Yes. Narrow focus on a single aspect of this issue to the exclusion of its broader implications is textbook mental gymnastics. There is nothing simple about what is being asked for, it one small part of a giant clusterfuck.

It's a buyer's market

This is only true if this particular market had any willpower, to not buy, and if it did there wouldn't be a need for any petition

 

[XforU]

If you buy a car you don't get the right to manufacture a copy of it, or access to the manufacturers trade secrets.

What is being asked for is not just nothing, it is frequently the basis of future games (and who in their right mind would hand over ANY data in the AI data scraping age).


Yes. Narrow focus on a single aspect of this issue to the exclusion of its broader implications is textbook mental gymnastics. There is nothing simple about what is being asked for, it one small part of a giant clusterfuck.

1.Actually when you buy a car you have the right to use it forever. Repair it anyway you want and even take the entire engine apart and rebuild it with different parts. I used to be big on tuning cars. This example is terrible. A better example would be phones, and the EU already cracked down on that.

2. We're not asking for anything directly. No one is telling them how to do it, it's either "It's a subscriptions" or they should preplan a way to make a game playable after they stop supporting it.
That source code that you claim shouldn't be released will be outdated by the time they actually release it.

3. No one said the game should become free. The people who OWN IT should have access to it. They aren't even asked to release the rights to the game. All you anti-SKG people are doing, is making shit up. "Buying doesn't = owning" is anther terrible consumer practice. Right now, we live in an age where companies want everything to be paid monthly. There are 100 subscription services, no one thinks "I own the entire library of games" when they pay for xbox gamepass.

Umm... the work hours of the developers to make the game work with rentable servers, is still a cost. Game servers are highly integrated into existing company infrastructure. So someone would have to come along and make it so. Now it is different for a game like say Battlefield which are designed with rentable servers in mind. But there isnt a universal switch that a game company can run and suddenly it works with your PC as a server.

Uhm... No. This will not affect old games. If this goes into law, it won't retroactively force devs to rework old games. Before you start the development of the game you'll have to plan ahead for it's end-of-life. This is something many industries do.

 

[suprisedcrankyface]

1.Actually when you buy a car you have the right to use it forever. Repair it anyway you want and even take the entire engine apart and rebuild it with different parts.

Yes, but you do not gain the right to manufacture propriety components just because some were in the car you purchased. They are not required to hand over all their trade secrets. You purchased it 'as is'. If you leased a car (which is a better example to the online service model) even if you paid to get it cleaned and polished when they take it back that investment is gone.

2. We're not asking for anything directly. No one is telling them how to do it, it's either "It's a subscriptions" or they should preplan a way to make a game playable after they stop supporting it.
That source code that you claim shouldn't be released will be outdated by the time they actually release it.

Subscriptions are a worse outcome, as now I would need to pay for online play. I would rather what we have (single purchase free game-play) & a game that ends when demand for it drops rather than one that milks me to play it. They can also stop offering a subscription service, so this in effect would still be 'killing games' but now you must pay to play before its killed.

And if you DON'T think it will become subscriptions, the AAA companies WANT these, I mean ubisoft already has a subscription games service its shoving as hard as it fucking can.

This petition is the tool needed to force an unpopular but profitable model onto consumers, being pushed for buy the same consumers that put money into building up the very problem they are now bitching about.

3. No one said the game should become free. The people who OWN IT should have access to it. They aren't even asked to release the rights to the game. All you anti-SKG people are doing, is making shit up. "Buying doesn't = owning" is anther terrible consumer practice. Right now, we live in an age where companies want everything to be paid monthly. There are 100 subscription services, no one thinks "I own the entire library of games" when they pay for xbox gamepass.

'you people' - there is no 'anti-SKG' group, just skeptical people who see the flaws in the demands & the fact it is a petition about preserving a leaf whilst the forest is on fire. This is a symptom, and the movement is a bandaid that will only drive the infection deeper.

No-one said buying doesn't = owning, they are saying you DIDN'T buy it - you purchased temporary access (like a movie ticket....). I didn't buy that deal because I think its a shit deal, and if you did don't complain that its a shit deal.

 

[MaxDownZ]

Yes, but you do not gain the right to manufacture propriety components just because some were in the car you purchased. They are not required to hand over all their trade secrets. You purchased it 'as is'. If you leased a car (which is a better example to the online service model) even if you paid to get it cleaned and polished when they take it back that investment is gone.


Subscriptions are a worse outcome, as now I would need to pay for online play. I would rather what we have (single purchase free game-play) & a game that ends when demand for it drops rather than one that milks me to play it. They can also stop offering a subscription service, so this in effect would still be 'killing games' but now you must pay to play before its killed.

And if you DON'T think it will become subscriptions, the AAA companies WANT these, I mean ubisoft already has a subscription games service its shoving as hard as it fucking can.

This petition is the tool needed to force an unpopular but profitable model onto consumers, being pushed for buy the same consumers that put money into building up the very problem they are now bitching about.


'you people' - there is no 'anti-SKG' group, just skeptical people who see the flaws in the demands & the fact it is a petition about preserving a leaf whilst the forest is on fire. This is a symptom, and the movement is a bandaid that will only drive the infection deeper.

No-one said buying doesn't = owning, they are saying you DIDN'T buy it - you purchased temporary access (like a movie ticket....). I didn't buy that deal because I think its a shit deal, and if you did don't complain that its a shit deal.

Most honest ANTI-SKG argument

 

[takoko]

Yes, but you do not gain the right to manufacture propriety components just because some were in the car you purchased. They are not required to hand over all their trade secrets. You purchased it 'as is'. If you leased a car (which is a better example to the online service model) even if you paid to get it cleaned and polished when they take it back that investment is gone.


Subscriptions are a worse outcome, as now I would need to pay for online play. I would rather what we have (single purchase free game-play) & a game that ends when demand for it drops rather than one that milks me to play it. They can also stop offering a subscription service, so this in effect would still be 'killing games' but now you must pay to play before its killed.

And if you DON'T think it will become subscriptions, the AAA companies WANT these, I mean ubisoft already has a subscription games service its shoving as hard as it fucking can.

This petition is the tool needed to force an unpopular but profitable model onto consumers, being pushed for buy the same consumers that put money into building up the very problem they are now bitching about.


'you people' - there is no 'anti-SKG' group, just skeptical people who see the flaws in the demands & the fact it is a petition about preserving a leaf whilst the forest is on fire. This is a symptom, and the movement is a bandaid that will only drive the infection deeper.

No-one said buying doesn't = owning, they are saying you DIDN'T buy it - you purchased temporary access (like a movie ticket....). I didn't buy that deal because I think its a shit deal, and if you did don't complain that its a shit deal.

Given this is EU, I guess it will be implemented like this: the service games are forbidden to use 'buy' or 'purchase' or similar words in other european languages. They can only use 'rent', 'lease' or 'subscribe'.

 

[XforU]

Yes, but you do not gain the right to manufacture propriety components just because some were in the car you purchased. They are not required to hand over all their trade secrets. You purchased it 'as is'. If you leased a car (which is a better example to the online service model) even if you paid to get it cleaned and polished when they take it back that investment is gone.


Subscriptions are a worse outcome, as now I would need to pay for online play. I would rather what we have (single purchase free game-play) & a game that ends when demand for it drops rather than one that milks me to play it. They can also stop offering a subscription service, so this in effect would still be 'killing games' but now you must pay to play before its killed.

And if you DON'T think it will become subscriptions, the AAA companies WANT these, I mean ubisoft already has a subscription games service its shoving as hard as it fucking can.

This petition is the tool needed to force an unpopular but profitable model onto consumers, being pushed for buy the same consumers that put money into building up the very problem they are now bitching about.


'you people' - there is no 'anti-SKG' group, just skeptical people who see the flaws in the demands & the fact it is a petition about preserving a leaf whilst the forest is on fire. This is a symptom, and the movement is a bandaid that will only drive the infection deeper.

No-one said buying doesn't = owning, they are saying you DIDN'T buy it - you purchased temporary access (like a movie ticket....). I didn't buy that deal because I think its a shit deal, and if you did don't complain that its a shit deal.

You do gain the right to manufacture components even without buying a car. They give all the information about the engine, gearbox and every part of the car. How do you think it get's repaired? I literally have an engine blueprint for an AMG 6.3 engine. It shouldn't say BUY on steam then, it should say LEASE or SUBSCRIBE.

Subscriptions are unavoidable at this point. No developer will take the Subscription only route though.

You see flaws in what "demands" exactly? Have you even read the document or you just watched a video from a specific someone?

Steam says I bought it. It literally says so on the buttons on most store fronts. It doesn't say lease, it doesn't say borrow, it doesn't say rent. Even now, this is borderline illegal. Buying a limited license or subscription is completely different. It says you buy the game, it doesn't say "Buy a License Now".

Imagine if you buy a car, and they tell you that they'll kill the engine whenever they want to because they just feel like it, or because they stopped manufacturing it...AND YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO REPAIR OR REPLACE THEIR ENGINE. Nah, that's wack af.


ALSO: Do you know how many games are P2P ? GTA 5 for example leaks your IP every time you join a public lobby. They don't host anything themselves...and some publishers still pull the plug, even on p2p games. The only thing they actually provide is their authentication server that checks if the game is a legal copy.

 

[Pretentious Goblin]

I was going to say this should be limited to single-player games, but right away it occurred to me that publishers would then just force "online multiplayer" onto everything even more than they already do. Ultimately consumers get more of what they pay for, and companies are much more adaptive than 70-year-old legislators who don't know what the fuck a "live-service" is. As much as I like Ross Scott, when he said (to paraphrase) ""vote with your wallet" never works so we need legislation", I thought "tough titties", because consumers are at least 50% to blame for this state of affairs. GOG is right there. Indie games are still being made. Offline single-player too. No one's forcing you to buy FIFA every year.

 

[_user]

No one's forcing you to buy FIFA every year.

Marketing is very powerful, these are games that are advertised everywhere, not to mention a lot of people play these multiplayer games just to play with their friends. You never blame customers, these corporations have tons of resources that we just don't have like market studies and psychologists. It's never been an even fight, which is why the concept of "vote with your wallet" is silly - you might have the purchasing power but they have all the tools to hedge the bet.

 

[Jaike]

Not commenting on the petition, but it'd sure be fun if this got taken up by the EC, the White House is already sperging over tech regulation in the EU.

and companies are much more adaptive than 70-year-old legislators who don't know what the fuck a "live-service" is.

Worth saying the average MEP's age is

You must be registered to see the links

. Not sure what's the case for the

You must be registered to see the links

that'd probably do most of the parliamentary work on it (depends on who's selected for it, there are a good number of specialists in the EP), seems the commissioner has some relevant experience tho.

Or in other words, this isn't Congress.