stop killing games Petition

[MissCougar]

Nowhere in the petition is asking companies to keep the games running themselves. It explicitly says that's not what is being asked.

Maybe they'll get on GoG then sometime. I don't know. Pros and cons of a digital world. I hope it works out for the people how they hope.

 

[Insomnimaniac Games]

Maybe they'll get on GoG then sometime. I don't know. Pros and cons of a digital world. I hope it works out for the people how they hope.

GOG is actually pretty big on game preservation, so they'd be all about this. But, speaking of things working out, I really hope this Brazil going after Nintendo thing works out. New Switch 2 consoles becoming basically e-waste with the press of a button is high-tier BS, and anyone who bought one should feel bad for supporting one of the most anti-consumer companies in the world.

 

[MarshmallowCasserole]

Not sure how this petition will go but I don't think it will change anything unfortunately. You can't force a company to lose money indefinitely because you bought a license for something from them.

You can, and in some instances you should, for example when dealing with long-term externalities (not the case with vidya, but still). Broadly speaking, basically any consumer-protection regulation is forcing companies to lose some money, and so if a business is already teetering on the brink of unprofitability additional regulation absolutely can kill it off. Which can be absolutely acceplable, i.e. if a business can't pay minimal wages, that business does not need to exist.

Considering live service games are coveted by every corpo suit as the holy cash cow, it's not unreasonable for the public to expect something extra in return as well. This petition is actually small potatoes, compared to the recent EU stuff that targets microtransactions.

 

[anne O'nymous]

You're repeatedly dismissing every point I make [...]

It's not because you fail to understand why my answers are relevant, that your points were dismissed.

That analogy fails because when the funfair closes, it doesn’t uninstall the rollercoaster from your hard drive.

They generally uninstall it from the place they were located, in order to limits the risk for your security and not be held responsible in case of misused. And it happen that the software you have installed on your computer also present a potential risk for you security now that the servers are closed.
The majority will not do it, but some can launch it by misclick, or years later because they don't remember what game it or by curiosity. And if, among other possibilities, someone have take over the IP addresses (what can happen, especially after years), who know what they'll put on your computer the update process.

In top of this, Intellectual Property is something complex and composed of many small rights that are, or not transferred.
Take Banksy and the destruction of his "Girl With Balloon" right after it have been sold for 1.2 millions euros. Someone bought the oeuvre, yet he wasn't prosecuted for destroying it, because the buyer bought the right to own the oeuvre, and possibly resell it, not the rights over the oeuvre itself, that stay the immutable property of its creator.
It's exactly the same for software. What you buy is the right to install, use and resell it, but it's property stay into the hands of its developer. Something that can't be changed outside of a revision of the 1886 Bern Convention (therefore outside of a world wide agreement). And something that would also open a monstrous Pandora box for all kind of creations, because intellectual property rights can be extended for a category that need it, but not really tweaked depending on the category.

Anyway, this revision wouldn't even solve the issue, because the Pandora box opened would also directly impact video games.
Purely online games wouldn't be sold anymore. The contract would be changed, worded in such way that you wouldn't anymore buy the software, but rent it, through a one time payment, for the duration of the server life. Something that would be perfectly legal and that not a single Lawmaker, whatever how much he would want to protect consumers, would be able to prevent; no Law can decide what a creator do with his rights over its creation, and therefore force it to sell it instead of renting it.
Starting there, the same wording could be also used for offline video games and, in fact, any kind of software. Seen how the world is currently evolving, with subscription for anything, including faucets when they are connected, Video games editors and publishers do not need to be given such bad idea.

You wanted to know how that petition could harm video games, this is one of the many way it can.

It is functionally the same thing for many people.

But, once again, like for your, "I don't care whether you call it a service or a game", you're trying to argue about a legal matter. Words have a meaning and this meaning matters because it's what define how things are handled by the Law.
If you want to know what can be legally done, and what can, or not, be changed in the Law, you need to starts by using the right words. Else you'll miss important points. It's why I talk about "services" where you talk about "games", and why, unlike what you think, the difference matter. Those games are handled by the laws covering services. Those laws already give you rights that you can try to apply, while it's those law that you've to target.

Whether it’s a server emulator or a private offline instance, the point remains: technical solutions exist. Just because Blizzard didn’t design WoW for offline doesn’t mean it’s impossible, which is exactly what the petition pushes back against. Don’t confuse "not supported" with "not possible."

Once again, WoW can not be used offline, it can just be used with a distant or local server. Confusing the two make your statement looks foolish. But anyway, the issue isn't that the software have been, or not, designed to be used locally. There's way more behind a software design than this.

WoW can be played in PvE, it's a relevant part of the game and the reason why it's possible to play it with a local server. But this isn't something that apply for all online games.
Those other games would then need the creation of bots to handle the other players. This would need the development for those bots, what would imply the development of an AI (not a ChatGPT-like AI, a game-like one). And obviously, this AI would be a farmer, it would need to mimic all the player behaviors, not just a limited range of them. This mean that it isn't just a question of days, because it don't suffice to mimic what the humanly operated character do. The AI would need to fully analyze the context, then pick the expected reaction among the whole range of possibilities offered by the game; this for all the fake players needed to provide at least an average game experience.
And, obviously again, if the server isn't designed to operate the bots by itself, it would need yet another local server, therefore yet another increase of the load for the computer; and this one would be more significant than the server itself.

That’s not a valid counterargument. People petition for change because something is unfair. Saying "life isn’t fair" is an excuse to avoid accountability, not an actual defense of anti-consumer practices.

The context matter, and I provided an explicit one, the impossibility to play the 8 tracks records that I inherited; implied because no one build 8 tracks players, nor even know how to fix them if ever they would be able to find the replacement pieces.

Life is unfair because each year there's things that become impossible. A technology is abandoned, a food manufacturers stop to produce that meal you like, a radio station you listen all days stop to broadcast, and so on. And there's nothing that Law can do, nothing that can be changed in the Law, to oppose to this. You are a consumer of this technology, you were a consumer of this meal, and their disappearance is not an anti-consumer practice.
It's the immutable reality of the world we all live in. When VHS technology was abandoned, no one had the stupid idea to force movies publishers to provide a DVD copy for the movies that everyone bought. And when it's DVD that will be unplayable, no one will have the stupid idea to force movies publishers to provide a [whatever will be the norm at this time] copy. Nor will lawmakers think that it's a good idea to do so.

Not really. You’re assuming the only value is during the game’s lifecycle. But when consumers purchase games, especially full-priced titles, they expect reasonable access, not sudden and complete removal.

The Crew's servers have been online for 10 years. If you bought the game full-priced, you played the game for 10 years, 9 at least. It is a reasonable access.
Of course, it's more an issue for those who bought the game few months before the server closure. But then, the change needed isn't to force editors to provide an alternate solution, but to force them to stop selling the game at a given time, and to not be authorized to close the server less than X years after this. Something that is doable.

If access to the game dies completely, that’s a loss of value and a broken expectation. That's exactly the sort of scenario consumer rights are designed to prevent.

There's absolutely no valid reason for games to be treated differently to any other goods. And, as I said above, each years there's goods that disappear, this without breaking consumers' rights.

Really? Then why are you arguing against it here, claiming that this petition would kill games?

Because it's the truth. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You'll look good if next time you'll buy a purely offline single player video game, it will be to discover that in fact you just rented it and that its editor have all rights to make it stop to function whenever he want. It's obviously the "worse case" scenario, but seen how greedy some publishers are, it's just something they never thought about before. But for them it would be the solution.
A game sales aren't as high as expected in regard of its development cost? Well, you do some changes, call it 2.0, and you brick the 1.0 the instant you release it, forcing people to buy the game again. This in all legality and without any legal possibilities to goes against it, nor legal possibilities for lawmakers to prevent it.

The owner of the Intellectual Property have all rights over it, and nothing, not even the Law can goes against this.
If they decide to rent you their creation, there's nothing one can do against it.
If they decide that you can't anymore use their creation, there's nothing one can do against it.
If the whole world would decide to change the Bern Convention in order to prevent them to do so, all rights owners would be impacted, from painters to writers, passing by movies and music publishers and all.
This wouldn't kill creations, but each one would need to compensate for the lost. Musicians would then rely on concerts as sole way to earn some money, what would mean a more than significant increase of the tickets price. Movies makers would rely on theaters as sole way to earn money, what would make tickets price more than overpriced. And so on.
This is the reality of the world. Not because of capitalism. Not because of the Law. Just because it is the reality. You can't change something without creating border effects, and people want to be able to eat and have a roof over their head.

Anyway, as I said, I don't argue against the petition by itself, I correct the, near to total, lack of knowledge.

This is a conversation about what should change.

And I answer saying what can change.

Gods, there's so many things that should change. Racism shouldn't exist. Homophobia shouldn't exist. War shouldn't exist. Misery shouldn't exist. Property shouldn't exist, but property deprivation shouldn't either.
It's not because something should change, that it can be changed. In fact, it doesn't even mean that it must be changed.
People shouldn't starve, they should be able to have the minimum to eat even if they have no money. But why should people working for food sellers be the ones starving because the said sellers have to buy the food to farmers? And why should farmers be the ones starving if they provide the food at a lower cost?
It's an issue inherent to the human society. And once again, not (fully) because of Capitalism, nor because of the Law. It's because either all works deserve a salary or none of them deserve one. But, as long as humans will be humans, the second option will not be viable because there will always be a minority that will overabuse of it.

If you're not interested in the bigger picture, or the human side of consumer rights, then yes, you're technically correct.

Well, perhaps are you interested by both, but you clearly don't see the bigger picture. You talk as if it would suffice to change a law, assuming that it's possible and that it wouldn't create tons of others issues.

As for the human side of consumer rights, your views are clearly one sided, totally dismissing the fact that the person creating the good, here a video game, are also humans and also have rights. You want the consumer to have all the benefits, without caring about the fact that is would deprive the creator from his own benefits.
"Who care if people have to works a full year, for free since you wouldn't want to pay twice, to provide a solution to continue to play the game through a local server, as long as you, the consumer, can continue to play the game". Whatever you want it or not, whatever if you're conscious of it or not, this is what this petition, as well as your posts, are saying. This is what your approach of consumers rights is saying.

This is misleading. No one is asking for developers to rewrite an entire game from scratch.

This is misreading, at least, misknowing at most. I never said, nor implied that the game had to be rewrote from scratch.

It's not because you can't picture that what you ask for (a version playable through a local server) can possibly imply, that it would never imply a full year of development, and millions spent to pays the persons that would works on it.

For the third time now: how exactly does signing this petition "kill games"? You've thrown that claim around, but never backed it up.

Once again, it's not because you don't understand it, that I haven't said it... Among the reasons I actually gave through my different posts:
"If there isn't enough signatures, it will comfort editors (because publishers aren't even the ones responsible here) in their decision to make such games; since just a small minority complain about them. And if there's enough signatures, like it will fail once in the hands of lawmakers, it will comfort some publishers in their thought that they can do whatever they want."

This applies now more then ever: If buying isn't owning, piracy isn't stealing

And it's why using the right words is mandatory. "Paying" doesn't mean "buying".

 

[dodongamagnifico]

Didn't expect to see a corpo shill in a piracy forum out of all places XD

 

[suprisedcrankyface]

Advocating for game companies on a piracy forum is certainly a new one.

Being against something is not being for the other thing. I can guarantee 100% that whatever comes out of this the costs will be passed back onto the consumer.

 

[Insomnimaniac Games]

I can guarantee 100% that whatever comes out of this the costs will be passed back onto the consumer.

You say that like they weren't doing that already.

 

[Aqwaa]

And it's why using the right words is mandatory. "Paying" doesn't mean "buying".

If you already fail to understand the meaning behind this saying, then we are done with this discussion. You take everything literally. You like to say that life is not fair? Well, life is also not literal. I tried, but everything I say is wrong in your mind. Do what you want, but it does not change the fact that you cannot claim that 1.3 million people who signed this petition have no idea what they are talking about. That would be absolutely ignorant and egotistical. Neither you nor I are all-knowing.

The Berlin Wall, which symbolizes the East-West divide, came down because people in the GDR, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and other countries stood up and demonstrated against it. Was that imaginable in the 1960s to 1980s? No. Did it ultimately happen? Yes. So stop insisting that laws cannot change.
History has proven otherwise countless times.

Here is a Reddit

You must be registered to see the links

showing some studios that oppose the Stop Killing Games petition.
Care to explain why people like Notch support SKG? Why are studios or developers like ConcernedApe not speaking out against it?
It is interesting that most of those who oppose SKG appear to be AAA studios backed by major investors and members of the game industry lobby.

Even if the petition gains momentum and lawmakers in the EU find it reasonable, they will not implement it word for word. They will consult actual experts and evaluate how things are likely to unfold. Your assumption fails at this very critical step. They do not just copy and paste petitions into law. Which is another reason why, even if the petition were as harmful as you claim, it would never “kill games.”

But as I said, I am done now. I could argue another million times. You think you are right, and I believe the way you think is too literal and focused only on exact wording. We will not come to any agreement, and that is fine. That is why there is freedom of speech in most countries. But one thing I would like you to think about is what I said above: it is absolutely egotistical to believe that 1.3 million people do not know what they are saying or thinking.

 

[suprisedcrankyface]

You say that like they weren't doing that already.

Yes, but this movement represents an increased cost

 

[Icarus Media]

Property shouldn't exist,

Give me your house please.

 

[morphnet]

Advocating for game companies on a piracy forum is certainly a new one.

Pointing out a bad idea does not mean someone supports one side or the other and "if you're not with us, you're against us" is not a great way to look at things.

 

[anne O'nymous]

If you already fail to understand the meaning behind this saying, then we are done with this discussion.

See, it's precisely what I said as opening of my previous post; "It's not because you fail to understand why my answers are relevant, that your points were dismissed."

It's necessarily me who don't understood, not you...

Do what you want, but it does not change the fact that you cannot claim that 1.3 million people who signed this petition have no idea what they are talking about.

Do you realize that 1.3 million people is nothing?

It's just a bit more than 0.1% of the

You must be registered to see the links

.
There's more children below 10yo in anyone of the countries initially targeted by the petition than people who signed it. It's the number of

You must be registered to see the links

around the world. Hell, there's even more people who log-in here each month, than people who signed the petition.

So, yes, there's absolutely nothing impossible in the fact that most among them don't know what they talk about.

That would be absolutely ignorant and egotistical. Neither you nor I are all-knowing.

One don't need to be all-knowing to know what Intellectual Property is and how it works. Nor did he need to be it to know what an online game development imply, and what can possibly be needed to pass from distant servers to local ones. It just need to be curious, to have had need for this knowledge, to works in software development, or to had to develop networks software.
And it happen that I check all the cases; one of the advantage to be old.

The Berlin Wall, which symbolizes the East-West divide, came down because people in the GDR, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and other countries stood up and demonstrated against it.

Oh yes, please, tell me about that event that was so world changing that, when it happened, our History teach dropped the current curriculum to pass a whole week explaining us all its process.

Was that imaginable in the 1960s to 1980s? No. Did it ultimately happen? Yes. So stop insisting that laws cannot change.

Read again; and I mean read what I wrote, not what you imagine.

I never said that laws cannot change, I explained why you cannot change the a set of Law as big as the one defined by the Bern Convention without side effects. And you wouldn't like those side effects.

It is interesting that most of those who oppose SKG appear to be AAA studios backed by major investors and members of the game industry lobby.

And also companies that have millions dollars lawyers team specialized in international Law and Intellectual Property... But I guess that this element have to be forgotten, because it don't speak in your favor.

Your assumption fails at this very critical step. They do not just copy and paste petitions into law.

I'm curious to know what assumption you talk about, since I never said, nor even implied, that they wouldn't do their job and therefore wrote the law...

You think you are right, and I believe the way you think is too literal and focused only on exact wording.

Baby, you want to change the Law, and for this you need to talk correctly and use the accurate words.

it is absolutely egotistical to believe that 1.3 million people do not know what they are saying or thinking.

"Arrogant". The word you are thinking about is "arrogant", not "egotistical"...

 

[anne O'nymous]

Give me your house please.

Why am I not surprised that a Brit can't see the "but property deprivation shouldn't either" that followed.

Show me the museum you'll place it in, then I'll decide if I agree or not

 

[icesavage]

First let me say that in general i support the idea of this movement, but i am rather pessimistic about the results should they actually cause a change. Why? MONEY. This is what it ultimately all boils down to. The cost of either changing the code, maintaining servers and licensing, and so on. The SKG crowd thinks that they bought the game for $X money and that should be that. It isnt though, and the cost for this law, will have to come from somewhere.

So what will happen is a combination of these things:

Game prices will go up to $100. Consumers will yell, and the PR machine will shift blame to this law. Will the game publisher need ALL of that extra money to implement end of game life stuff. No but because the law allows them to shift blame to politicians, and get away with it for the most part.

The "end of game life" option is a new Legacy gaming subscription. Want to play Crew 1 after we shutdown the game down? Pay us $25 a month and get access to the Legacy gaming servers. It satisfies the law, because the game is still playable. If you pay for it.

The last option for big publisher is Hollywood Accounting (tm). You 'sell' the game to a holding company and then the holding company goes bankrupt, which ends support for the game. The law would have to have some kind of stipulation regarding if the company of the game no longer exists. Because it would have to be generic enough to account for game companies failing. Thus, a large publisher could just force this to happen. You the consumer or even the government cant sue a bankrupt company. Or fine them. And you could create the holding company from the beginning, and thus not even have to sell the game, thus the paper trail is even smaller. Hollywood creates a company for every movie in order to wring out all the profits, while not paying residuals. This could be no different.


Mostly I think #1 will occur. Game Publisher have been looking for excuses to bump the price up for games. This will allow them to do so. I also think later we will get #2. Time will be needed to create such portals.

 

[XforU]

Yes, but this movement represents an increased cost

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

The amount of mental gymnastics in this thread is astounding.

 

[Aqwaa]

The amount of mental gymnastics in this thread is astounding.

Well, to be fair, its the internet. People claim a lot of things, chances that their lying or trolling are very high. I wont engage with him anymore, since he wants to get personal. Prime example of a "Im right, your wrong" type of guy. Those quotes below speak for them self. The intend was clear since the beginning:

This petition is what will kill games, period.

It's not what this petition is about...

Running a local server is not playing offline.

Because it's the truth. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Anyway, as I said, I don't argue against the petition by itself, I correct the, near to total, lack of knowledge.

Baby, you want to change the Law, and for this you need to talk correctly and use the accurate words.
"Arrogant". The word you are thinking about is "arrogant", not "egotistical"...

Aaannnyway, hope yall are having a great day. Sign the petition if you can! Maybe it wont change things, maybe it will. Still worth a try, better than sitting around doing nothing and be yapping 'bout it.

 

[woody554]

The cost of either changing the code, maintaining servers

NO FUCKING BODY IS ASKING THE COMPANIES TO RUN SERVERS OR MAINTAIN JACK SHIT!

how do people not get this, jesus fucking christ.

 

[icesavage]

NO FUCKING BODY IS ASKING THE COMPANIES TO RUN SERVERS OR MAINTAIN JACK SHIT!

how do people not get this, jesus fucking christ.

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.

Next you say, RELEASE THE SOURCE CODE. Please, information like that is very much proprietary and game engines are the lifeblood of the industry. By making them release the code, it allows all other game companies to also see what they have been doing. Also this violates standard copyright practices. Code is copyrighted, much like books are and most copyrights last 95 years or so. So yeah in 85 years or so you can demand that the source code for "The Crew" to be released because the copyright has run out.

Next problem is licensing. This effects racing games the most, I think, because all the cars in it are licensed by their manufacturer to be in the game. The publisher has to pay to get the right to use the names and likenesses. Otherwise they can be sued. And such contracts are usually time limited. Meaning the company is allowed to use the assets for 10 years and then they have to pay again. Now the game is at end of life, the game company cant just give away the ability to play the game, because the license holders still get to demand their asset money. And removing the assets, again CODING TIME, which is work hours which COSTS MONEY.

GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEAD. THIS COSTS MONEY.

You WILL pay for it, on the front end, with higher game cost or on the backend with a subscription model. Just know you will be paying for it somewhere.

 

[MarshmallowCasserole]

GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEAD. THIS COST MONEY.

Yes, but not as much as you imply, otherwise we would not have had some examples of voluntary game preservation made by some companies. Live service games are money-printing machines for these companies, the cost of maintaining ONE server at the tail end of game's life is negligible compared to what its lifetime revenue is. So yeah, the ultra-super-duper-premium-deluxe skin for that Glock will cost $5 more, whales gonna whale anyway.

 

[icesavage]

Yes, but not as much as you imply, otherwise we would not have had some examples of voluntary game preservation made by some companies. Live service games are money-printing machines for these companies, the cost of maintaining ONE server at the tail end of game's life is negligible compared to what its lifetime revenue is. So yeah, the ultra-super-duper-premium-deluxe skin for that Glock will cost $5 more, whales gonna whale anyway.

Look i m not defending the evil, predatory practices that these corporation do.

Do I believe that a legacy subscription system is wrong, sure, but that is what this will lead to. I m not happy with it.

But yeah, there is a cost associated with this. Depending on your point of view, it is little or at least good amount. But laws need to shaped 'fairly' so the industry will have a right to have their say in the matter, and they will ofcourse say this will be very expensive. Hence the reason they will increase game costs by $20 across the board for AAA games. And the public and the politicians cant immediately discount that fact that there will be a cost. And that is where the game publishers will win the PR war because we will still buy the games even if they become more expensive.


Video game entertainment is king. Hollywood money is pittance in comparison.

Overall, my point is that this movement just helped make things more expensive because ultimately there is a cost increase and that will just be pass on to us, the consumer. How much, is up for debate. And Marshmallow, you may be right, that the actual cost is low, but it is an easy excuse to gouge us. So the corps will happily do it.

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