this post was submitted on 19 Jan 2024
38 points (97.5% liked)

PC Gaming

8556 readers
704 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments.
  10. Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

this is for public coverage, the original source is here

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

The issue isn't even just "him vs corporation with expensive lawyers". There's also no legal basis for any kind of action.

I've said in another post that I'm all for legislation that changes the obligations software developers have when selling software, such that abandoning hosting for software that requires access to their server comes with the obligation that they enable third parties to replace the functionality and consumers don't lose access. But there aren't any laws that can be interpreted that way. At absolute most, some very recent purchasers might be entitled to a refund. And if you could write such a law in a coherent way, and find a way to get it passed, it would still almost certainly only be able to apply to future software sales, not be retroactive.