Gaming

20006 readers

24 users here now

Sub for any gaming related content!

Rules:

1: No spam or advertising. This basically means no linking to your own content on blogs, YouTube, Twitch, etc.
2: No bigotry or gatekeeping. This should be obvious, but neither of those things will be tolerated. This goes for linked content too; if the site has some heavy "anti-woke" energy, you probably shouldn't be posting it here.
3: No untagged game spoilers. If the game was recently released or not released at all yet, use the Spoiler tag (the little ⚠️ button) in the body text, and avoid typing spoilers in the title. It should also be avoided to openly talk about major story spoilers, even in old games.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

Metallinatus@lemmy.ml

peternile@lemmy.ml

179

Pirates ask EU Commission to look into killing of video games (www.patrick-breyer.de)

submitted 7 months ago by testman@lemmy.ml to c/gaming@lemmy.ml

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 8 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] kadu@lemmy.world 81 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I think it's totally fine for a company to shut down the servers for a game...

...as long as they have a public tool to host your own server, free of any restrictions. They can also stop selling the game, but they can't shut down the distribution for people who already paid for it, unless they straight up host it somewhere public and call it shareware from that point onwards.

Any other alternative is crazy. Imagine you buy a music vinyl, then 5 years later some Sony executive knocks on your door and says "hey you know we are shutting down, so imma need that disc you've bought I'm going to shatter it right now thanks"

[–] jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de 15 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Don't give Sony any ideas. But yes, studios should get two choices, either open up the server or fully refund every single cent at least to the players that played the game in the year before the shutdown was announced (just so they don't say they don't have to put a shitload of effort on a dead game).

The same should apply to all digital sales.

[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 62 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I'd settle for the EU to start enforcement on use of the words buy and purchase. If a game requires online connection or only gives you a license, then they must use the words rent or license at point of sale.

[–] Klear@lemmy.world 40 points 7 months ago

Don't forget a clear information on when exactly this rent/license expires. Otherwise we're just shuffling words around.

[–] mindlight@lemm.ee 23 points 7 months ago

Let's call it for what it is:

Planned obsolescence.

[–] onlinepersona@programming.dev 18 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Vote Pirate Party, y'all! 🏴‍☠️

Anything closed-source (designs, code, documentation, ...) should be forced to be opensourced after either obsoletion/deprecation or a fixed time period, whichever happens first.

Anti Commercial AI thingy

CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

[–] onlooker@lemmy.ml 11 points 7 months ago

So glad this is gaining traction. I like playing older games from time to time and I am NOT down with capricious companies killing games just because they decided it doesn't make financial sense to patch out their DRM. The Crew was sold as a good, not a service. They should either patch out the online requirement or give users their money back.

I can imagine the prospect not being attractive to Ubisoft, but who cares about Ubisoft anyway.

[–] Caligvla@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 7 months ago

Honestly I doubt this is going to change how games are made, I've seen this one opinion floating around that if this thing goes forward only the wording on the marketing will change and knowing these companies I agree. Products will become services, ownership to leasing, buying to subscribing and so on.