General Gaming News and Discussion

meStevo

meStevo

I think your wife's a bigfoot gus.
<Silver Donator>
6,674
4,982
I think a good way to address that without a clunky 'making games always playable' is requiring a disclosure of what the end state of a game looks like when development / support ceases and then let people speak w/ their wallets. If indefinite support is indicated or the intention, well then it has to be spelled out what happens if circumstances prevent that from being fulfilled - ie 'should the servers no longer be available then the game would no longer be accessible'. Same with any dependencies. We're going to hit a point where some indie game is going to rely on some LLM to function and that LLM is going to go away or that endpoint no longer exist and.. poof. That dependency could be spelled out and the potential consequences of that loss to the product being purchased.

Much of this was always implied by any game w/ a mandatory online connection before though, and we've seen this play out in the past so... this still comes across as just a big mob and rabble rousing to me. I get the general intention, and if the end result is better information before someone makes a purchase, great. If it's going to mandate some clunky support / code requirements of all future games released - not so much.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: 1 users
Neranja

Neranja

<Bronze Donator>
2,849
4,583
Control said:
Is that actually what the petition says?
Click to expand...
You are quoting from the annex, which invokes the EU charter in regard to property laws and consumer protection, to show how it is relevant to EU legislation.

Control said:
Maybe I missed a spot in the petition that limits the scope?
Click to expand...

This initiative calls to require publishers that sell or license videogames to consumers in the European Union (or related features and assets sold for videogames they operate) to leave said videogames in a functional (playable) state.

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.

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.
Click to expand...
i'm sure you'll figure out what the colors mean.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
Control

Control

Bronze Baronet of the Realm
4,301
11,673
Neranja said:
You are quoting from the annex, which invokes the EU charter in regard to property laws and consumer protection, to show how it is relevant to EU legislation.




i'm sure you'll figure out what the colors mean.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I'm really not trying to pull an "ackhsually", but I don't see anything that limits the type of game being targeted. I do see a lot of "well obviously they mean x" from the various people discussing it though, which is why I was trying to see what the thing actually said.
 
Bandwagon

Bandwagon

Kolohe
<Silver Donator>
25,389
68,684
meStevo said:
I think a good way to address that without a clunky 'making games always playable' is requiring a disclosure of what the end state of a game looks like when development / support ceases and then let people speak w/ their wallets. If indefinite support is indicated or the intention, well then it has to be spelled out what happens if circumstances prevent that from being fulfilled - ie 'should the servers no longer be available then the game would no longer be accessible'. Same with any dependencies. We're going to hit a point where some indie game is going to rely on some LLM to function and that LLM is going to go away or that endpoint no longer exist and.. poof. That dependency could be spelled out and the potential consequences of that loss to the product being purchased.

Much of this was always implied by any game w/ a mandatory online connection before though, and we've seen this play out in the past so... this still comes across as just a big mob and rabble rousing to me. I get the general intention, and if the end result is better information before someone makes a purchase, great. If it's going to mandate some clunky support / code requirements of all future games released - not so much.
Click to expand...
I've bought movies on Amazon prime only to have them disappear afterwards. Their agreement already states that you don't own the product or have guaranteed access in perpetuity
 
Tasty The Treat

Tasty The Treat

Molten Core Raider
396
877
Bandwagon said:
I've bought movies on Amazon prime only to have them disappear afterwards. Their agreement already states that you don't own the product or have guaranteed access in perpetuity
Click to expand...
I quickly learned how it's retarded to purchase anything for a streaming service. I never had a problem with purchasing digital content that I can properly download/install though because I can usually keep it and have it work even if their service goes down or it stops being distributed.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
OU Ariakas

OU Ariakas

Diet Dr. Pepper Enjoyer
<Silver Donator>
8,091
24,677
Why are people so fucking retarded? When I buy a car do I get some fucking guarantee that it is going to stay on forever? When I bought CD's was I given a guarantee that the industry would make sure that there was a way to play CD's in perpetuity? When I bought a goddamn NES game in the 90's was I given a guarantee that there would always be an NES around to play it on?

These are companies selling a product that is WELL FUCKING KNOWN now. Everyone and their fucking dog knows that a "live service" game lasts only as long as the company chooses to support it. Why should anyone that made the free fucking choice to buy a video game be allowed to have the retarded expectation that a mere $60 allows them to enjoy that game until the heat death of the universe?
 
  • 3Picard
  • 1Seriously?
  • 1Dislike
Reactions: 4 users
Intrinsic

Intrinsic

Person of Whiteness
<Gold Donor>
15,918
14,875
Confused High Quality GIF
 
Burns

Burns

Avatar of War Slayer
8,292
15,829
OU Ariakas said:
Why are people so fucking retarded? When I buy a car do I get some fucking guarantee that it is going to stay on forever? When I bought CD's was I given a guarantee that the industry would make sure that there was a way to play CD's in perpetuity? When I bought a goddamn NES game in the 90's was I given a guarantee that there would always be an NES around to play it on?

These are companies selling a product that is WELL FUCKING KNOWN now. Everyone and their fucking dog knows that a "live service" game lasts only as long as the company chooses to support it. Why should anyone that made the free fucking choice to buy a video game be allowed to have the retarded expectation that a mere $60 allows them to enjoy that game until the heat death of the universe?
Click to expand...
On one hand I kinda agree but, on the other, I hate live service game companies and hope every single person in management stubs their toe on a daily basis.
 
  • 2Worf
  • 1Like
Reactions: 2 users
Penance

Penance

Golden Baronet of the Realm
8,658
14,306
OU Ariakas said:
Why are people so fucking retarded? When I buy a car do I get some fucking guarantee that it is going to stay on forever? When I bought CD's was I given a guarantee that the industry would make sure that there was a way to play CD's in perpetuity? When I bought a goddamn NES game in the 90's was I given a guarantee that there would always be an NES around to play it on?

These are companies selling a product that is WELL FUCKING KNOWN now. Everyone and their fucking dog knows that a "live service" game lasts only as long as the company chooses to support it. Why should anyone that made the free fucking choice to buy a video game be allowed to have the retarded expectation that a mere $60 allows them to enjoy that game until the heat death of the universe?
Click to expand...
Damn imagine spewing this shit 10 years ago in this board. Turning everything into as a service is such fucking AIDS and this mentality will eventually force you into a corner when everything you buy is low grade slop shat out by global conglomerates and you stand there smug "Well if you don't like it just don't buy it" in a market completely devoid of any humanity.

"Oh you didn't read the 30 page ToS before you signed up to play the game? It says right here we reserve the right to take your money and guarantee you nothing in return"
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: 1 users
Neranja

Neranja

<Bronze Donator>
2,849
4,583
Control said:
Sorry, I'm really not trying to pull an "ackhsually", but I don't see anything that limits the type of game being targeted. I do see a lot of "well obviously they mean x" from the various people discussing it though, which is why I was trying to see what the thing actually said.
Click to expand...
I think you make the same mistake Maldavius Figtree made, and completely misunderstood how the petition process generally works--at least in the EU. It's more like a trigger for the legislation to concern themselves with an issue the petitioners want regulated, and why it's an issue for the petitioners. The petition is NOT actually writing the laws, as that would be totally insane.

The shorter and more to the point the petition text is, the better. It can be as easy as: "I want loot boxes and gacha pulls in video games banned for children and minors."

There is plenty room for discussion and industry lobbyists to come in, tighten down specifics and make exceptions--and water down the laws in the process.
 
Control

Control

Bronze Baronet of the Realm
4,301
11,673
Neranja said:
I think you make the same mistake Maldavius Figtree made, and completely misunderstood how the petition process generally works--at least in the EU. It's more like a trigger for the legislation to concern themselves with an issue the petitioners want regulated, and why it's an issue for the petitioners. The petition is NOT actually writing the laws, as that would be totally insane.

The shorter and more to the point the petition text is, the better. It can be as easy as: "I want loot boxes and gacha pulls in video games banned for children and minors."

There is plenty room for discussion and industry lobbyists to come in, tighten down specifics and make exceptions--and water down the laws in the process.
Click to expand...
Well sure, I understand that, but when people say "the thing says this!" and then the thing doesn't say that... Not just you, but everything I read about this seems to be filled with people just filling in whatever they think makes sense and stating it as fact. I understand that it's just asking the EU to look at the issue and then they get to decide what, if anything, needs to happen, but it's still asking for a specific thing.
 
...

...

Goonsquad Officer
7,037
16,264
we really mostly need the multinational companies to stop suing people that create servers/websites/support for the product they purchased and want to keep playing. if that means some ghetto company can make aftermarket SNES so be it. if that means people can make their own private concord server. okay i guess. websites with installcracks that get around weird internet authentications prolly too.
 
OU Ariakas

OU Ariakas

Diet Dr. Pepper Enjoyer
<Silver Donator>
8,091
24,677
Penance said:
Damn imagine spewing this shit 10 years ago in this board. Turning everything into as a service is such fucking AIDS and this mentality will eventually force you into a corner when everything you buy is low grade slop shat out by global conglomerates and you stand there smug "Well if you don't like it just don't buy it" in a market completely devoid of any humanity.

"Oh you didn't read the 30 page ToS before you signed up to play the game? It says right here we reserve the right to take your money and guarantee you nothing in return"
Click to expand...

I am right there with you; I absolutely despise "games as a service" and don't play any of them because it is there to monetize your time instead of being a good game.

The difference between me and you pouty bitches is that I go into a purchase with my eyes wide open and don't expect any entity to provide something forever for a single price when that expectation does not exist anywhere else in the known world.

If Steam disappeared tomorrow I would be out thousands of dollars.....that I spent knowing it was a digital service and that I payed for those games that they would be available to me ONLY AS LONG AS THE COMPANY EXISITED. If Steam goes under today, I have no expectation that those game are available because the entity that I made a contract with is gone.

All of you have known for at least a decade that if a game flops and the company goes under that it is not going to be supported/updated/patched anymore. If you buy a game in 2025 and think that you are guaranteed anything beyond the standard return window, then you are being willfully ignorant. Do I wish that was the case? No; but you people that play a $60 game for a few years and then expect it to be easily available 20 years later would not reciprocate for whatever thing you sell today.
 
Pyros

Pyros

<Silver Donator>
11,343
2,444
OU Ariakas said:
I am right there with you; I absolutely despise "games as a service" and don't play any of them because it is there to monetize your time instead of being a good game.

The difference between me and you pouty bitches is that I go into a purchase with my eyes wide open and don't expect any entity to provide something forever for a single price when that expectation does not exist anywhere else in the known world.

If Steam disappeared tomorrow I would be out thousands of dollars.....that I spent knowing it was a digital service and that I payed for those games that they would be available to me ONLY AS LONG AS THE COMPANY EXISITED. If Steam goes under today, I have no expectation that those game are available because the entity that I made a contract with is gone.

All of you have known for at least a decade that if a game flops and the company goes under that it is not going to be supported/updated/patched anymore. If you buy a game in 2025 and think that you are guaranteed anything beyond the standard return window, then you are being willfully ignorant. Do I wish that was the case? No; but you people that play a $60 game for a few years and then expect it to be easily available 20 years later would not reciprocate for whatever thing you sell today.
Click to expand...
The companies that close some of these games don't all go under. The posts above about single player games having always online DRM is a good example. Did EA shutdown? No. They just don't want to run the servers anymore, so they closed them, for example because they're releasing the new version of the same game and want people to buy that one instead. Now your game is a brick. It's not even an online game, it might have some online components or maybe none at all, but the whole thing is just fucking gone. And you can't even use private servers and other shit because then EA threatens to sue you for trying to play a game you bought that they don't even sell or run anymore.

The whole thing won't lead to much mind you, but it still beats doing nothing about it I'd think. Maybe it does end up with some law that forces some companies to at least make a slight effort to not be complete sacks of shit. They'll still mostly be but maybe you can force their hands to be a bit less so. This is how regulations work in general, if you don't force the companies to do shit that benefit the consumer, or better, shit that doesn't actively harm the consumers, then they'll just do that.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
OU Ariakas

OU Ariakas

Diet Dr. Pepper Enjoyer
<Silver Donator>
8,091
24,677
Pyros said:
The companies that close some of these games don't all go under. The posts above about single player games having always online DRM is a good example. Did EA shutdown? No. They just don't want to run the servers anymore, so they closed them, for example because they're releasing the new version of the same game and want people to buy that one instead. Now your game is a brick. It's not even an online game, it might have some online components or maybe none at all, but the whole thing is just fucking gone. And you can't even use private servers and other shit because then EA threatens to sue you for trying to play a game you bought that they don't even sell or run anymore.

The whole thing won't lead to much mind you, but it still beats doing nothing about it I'd think. Maybe it does end up with some law that forces some companies to at least make a slight effort to not be complete sacks of shit. They'll still mostly be but maybe you can force their hands to be a bit less so. This is how regulations work in general, if you don't force the companies to do shit that benefit the consumer, or better, shit that doesn't actively harm the consumers, then they'll just do that.
Click to expand...

I understand and agree with you that EA is a shitty company and those tactics are just to get more money out of the consumer.

HOWEVER

They have done this for more than a decade now and everyone knows this when they buy one of EA's shitty products. It isn't like they added all of these 'features' once the game was in your hands. DRM, always online, no private servers; these are things that the companies crow about before the game is even released. It's like in this specific realm that we all like, caveat emptor goes out the window.
 
moonarchia

moonarchia

The Scientific Shitlord
25,852
48,020
OU Ariakas said:
I understand and agree with you that EA is a shitty company and those tactics are just to get more money out of the consumer.

HOWEVER

They have done this for more than a decade now and everyone knows this when they buy one of EA's shitty products. It isn't like they added all of these 'features' once the game was in your hands. DRM, always online, no private servers; these are things that the companies crow about before the game is even released. It's like in this specific realm that we all like, caveat emptor goes out the window.
Click to expand...
SKG is a net positive. If company is going away or game is no longer making them money, they can do their thing. This just requires them to allow you and people like you to either remove the online requirements (final update to remove it would be easiest if you are still in business), or if someone wants to run a server they can. That's it.
 
Penance

Penance

Golden Baronet of the Realm
8,658
14,306
This board shouldn't be the bar for consumer protection. We tend to stay very informed by design of said message board and tend to be above average IQ. If the standard is take advantage of the average moron then we as consumers will price ourselves out of a healthy market due to the nature of unregulated capitalism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.