It’s astonishing to me how even right here on Lemmy so many people still misunderstand what this is about with comments saying that piracy fixes it or that downloading the game installer solves the issue. The games where those things are options aren’t what this effort is about, this is about games like Darkspore, Defiance, Tabula Rasa, and our prototypical example The Crew, where there is no one who can play them no matter where, how, or when, they acquired the game, it is impossible to play for anyone, the whole piece of art has been destroyed.
Honestly if we can’t even communicate what the movement is about to those who aught to be our base it really does not bode well for gaining any kind of wider traction.
That does seem to be an influence, though oddly there are some modern wildly popular games, Minecraft being a prime example, that still allow you to self host your own server, so it shouldn’t really be as foreign of a concept as it appears to be to some younger folk.
I’m not young and I disagree with this petition. I don’t think developers are doing anything wrong or immoral, and they should be free to make the design decisions they think are best. If the consumers end up not liking their decisions, then they won’t buy the companies product. I think creating a law or regulation around this is too far.
The thing is when you created your account you agreed to the fact that it isn’t your game. What you agreed to was a game that they own and control and you can participate in. You might not like the results when they close the game but you chose to start playing that game to begin with.
People aren’t used to this as a concept, especially when there are so many terms and conditions screens (that have been shown in multiple jurisdictions courts to not be legally binding) they click through on a daily basis as well as many other “as a service” models that are reliable enough that people don’t realise what the pitfalls are (people playing for Netflix are fairly certain it won’t close next week, for instance), even the more technically minded expect sunset clauses - which would be a pretty good legal baseline to improve the situation.
That’s basically like saying g all mmo’s should illegal. Or that it is illegal to go out of business and close up shop without giving away all your code.
That’s pretty much exactly what I’m saying. If you offer software that requires outside servers to run, you should be legally obligated to release the code used to run the servers if you discontinue supporting that software. That doesn’t make mmo’s any different, just a minor change to how they handle end of life.
If you don’t like how a company handles their end of life then don’t buy from them. Trying to make it illegal is unnecessary as companies are already facing negative consequences for making poor EOL choices. I don’t like forcing developers to create in a specific way, I’d rather they have freedom to choose.
At what point in the purchase cycle is it known that they won’t? Because the right reserved in a EULA is not a guarantee of occurrence, so how does one make a decision when or when not to purchase?
Also, when single player games are being forced to be always online and are being affected, there is a real problem. If there is no valid tangible benefit to the player for a game to be online, and require the online component to play the game, it should be illegal.
Well, I knew the crew would be decommissioned and dissapear from day one. I’m not sure why people expected it to live forever. I understand people want to change things to be different, but the norm before was that online games are sunset. Its happened over and over.
And you would base your decision on prior actions of the company. Dont buy ubisoft until they prove they have fixed this problem. You already shouldnt be playing online games hosted by shitty companies, exactly for this reason. Most companies actually don’t fuck their fan base over, and so its not an issue.
You’re damn right I don’t like it, I especially don’t like how it destroys art history, which is why I’m part of this campaign to make that practice illegal.
The general minimum for a National Landmark is 50 years. This would make any game released prior to 1975 eligible. That is a good chunk of games. That said, protecting works of art are usually much shorter terms. Works of art can be justified to be protected almost immediately depending on the artist and work.
Okay thats fair, I actually didnt know there were video games that old. I wouldnt day all of them should be archived as a rule but if they are available why not.
I don’t know any current publishers that would qualify for the day one protection you mentioned. Can you give an example of something being declared historical nearly immediately though?
I know I could find examples, but I am exhausted after coding all day on one thorny problem, so I am just going to make educated guesses from what I know of US history. I would bet that the Statue of Liberty and Mount Rushmore received National Landmark status before the general 50 year mark. I would hazard that the presidential monuments on DC did as well.
That said, this was an exercise in examples of things that need to be protected as part of history. Works of art have a much lower bar than national landmarks for this. Games that are transformative or innovative in a way that we still feel today, or games that are massive parts of the cultural zeitgeist for a period definitely deserve preservation. Rogue, Dark Souls, Final Fantasy, Final Fantasy VII, Super Mario Brothers, Zork, etc. The reason this is such a big deal is that it might be hard to measure in a moment what is or is not going to have that long reaching impact. Imagine you are an art historian in 30 years and you are doing a paper on the growth and history of game mechanics. How are you going to research that. If you were doing one on painting and how techniques grow over time, you go look at the paintings, study them. The game paper will have no source material to study to draw new conclusions or find previously unnoticed connections if 70+% of the source media disappears in the next 10 years.
One persons historical piece is another’s bit of oppression, using mount Rushmore is a great example of this. I’m pointing out that I find it impossible to agree on what’s historical as a country when it comes to things like that. I literally never touched dark souls the entire time its been popular, its not historical for me.
Then theres the fact that you can’t really delete anything from the internet. Sure online games can be “disconnected” but even the crew has a private server going live this year. WoW did the same thing and eventually the company started supporting their old games again. Funny thing about that, they didnt have the old code anymore and had to rewrite it.
I would like the same result as you would, I just don’t want laws to force it that way. I think its already changing and its unnecessary to regulate. This might not be the case in this instance but regulations tend to be easier to handle by larger companies as well, and I wouldnt want to unduly stress small development teams. Art should largely be unrestricted.
Yeah, but a contract that you cannot negotiate before signing isn’t really a contract is it? It is a gate keeper. A gun to the head. An “agree to this or else”. In the modern world, one can do essentially nothing without signing a EULA. Want to get a job without signing one? Good luck. Want to play a game? Not many of them. Want to shop online, look at art, communicate with friends and family. Many of the most integral parts of maintaining our mental health are being put behind abusive “contracts” that strip us of any rights we think we have. Community, leisure, socialization, entertainment, all of the primary avenues in the modern world have predominantly become privatized and every one of those comes at a pretty steep nonmonetary cost.
I wouldn’t call this a shitty business practice. You agreed to a game they own and control. You went into the game knowing this. If they are losing money on the game why should they lose more just to “preserve” the game after shutting down?
They don’t have to. They can release the code and let people run their own servers once they’re no longer interested in doing so. This costs them nothing.
That is not a rebuttal. A rebuttal requires evidentiary support of your stance. For instance, as support for saying it costs them nothing, one might offer the following:
once released, users would distribute and maintain the file servers independently of the corporation, thus costing the company nothing.
once released, users would maintain independent game servers and pay for their upkeep, thus costing the company nothing.
once released, the modding community would take over the maintenance and development on the code base, thus costing the company nothing.
There, 3 salient points which support the position that releasing the codebase for the game when sunsetting it costs the company nothing. I could even make points about how it is actually profitable for the company, but I want to give you your turn to rebutt me now that you have a good example of how to provide a good argument.
Okay, if the crew was released at EOL, it would have cost ubisoft money on sales of the crew 2. I would not expect them to choose to lose money in that situation. It was only later with multiple issues with multiple games that ubisofts market value tanked and they had to assess a new position/direction for the company.
Also, we are talking about video games, not a basic right like food, water, and air.
And by what mechanism would it have affected sales of the sequel? Historically, and demonstrably, greater access to a game increases the sales of sequels. Why do you think developers put games in a series on sale when a new game in a series is coming out? I would definitely argue that having released the server hosting code for The Crew to allow people to host private servers would have potentially added to The Crew 2 sales. Also, if they release the server code, but not the game code, they could continue the sales of the game on storefronts at a reduced price having it marked that it will no longer receive updates and still made even more money from those sales. I would definitely prefer if they just release the whole game, but either would have worked.
Its just as likely to do either, its all speculation. I still don’t want to force a developer to do anything really. Prohibiting things is a bit different though.
In this case, it is a prohibition on sunsetting a game without providing the means for purchasers to continue playing without your support. They are taking an action in their sunsetting decision, this is a prohibition on one choice made in that process.
Except… For a contract to be legal it must be agreed upon by both parties free of manipulation or coercion. Now, usually this is specified to be manipulation or coercion on the part of one of the parties, but what I argue is that in the modern era that is insufficient to encompass the growing complexity around the way society works and how it will continue moving forward.
Pulling the numbers out of my well educated ass, 40 years ago the average person would encounter EULA-like contracts a handful of times per year. Maybe for a mail order service, or a piece of software. Today we encounter them daily. The amount of information in them is intentionally made dense and overwhelming so the average person becomes numb very quickly and opts to click through on most of them without reading them. This enables all sorts of personal liberty and information abuses on the part of corporations.
40 years ago you did not have one to find a job, a lover, buy a car (still had a loan contract, but if you paid up front you had 0 contracts other than the bill of sale). You would not encounter them to work most jobs. You could go years without having to risk signing your rights over to a company and usually when you did you had negotiation power. This is not true today. You work for a company, they use Zoom, Slack, Google Workplace, a Virtual Timecard service, all of which have individual EULA that you as a private citizen, not an employer, must agree to and be bound by. Microsoft can put in their EULA that they are allowed to take a screenshot of your computer every 15 seconds and transmit it to their servers. This could be intercepted, or the servers could be hacked and have the entire database compromised and you have 0 say other than public outcry or to airgap your system, which then complains constantly that it cannot connect to the internet and becomes virtually unusable for about 80% of why you want to own it.
Being required by an employer to use software which requires that you as an individual sign a EULA is coercion. Having 0 recourse for alternatives in a marketplace which do not require signing a EULA is coercion. Having the terms which strip your rights irrevocably and transferrably buried and written in confusing ways is manipulation.
I should never have to worry that my copyright is being stripped from a piece of art I create just because I share it to a friend on some website.
You are acting like an EULA is going to ruin your life. Restaurants have EULAs too, like requiring shirt and shoes. Its not some crazy concept that if you want to enter someone else’s establishment (online game) they might have expectations on how you behave.
“No shirt, no shoes, no service” is a health code, not a EULA.
Also, you are conflating social contracts with actual legally binding ones. If you had to sign a contract to eat at a resteraunt which gave them the right to photograph you and record all of your conversations while you ate then use all of it for marketing without compensating you or to sell the contents of your conversations and likeness to unknown 3rd parties without informing you of who they were sold to and what the intended use was, would you still eat there.
Your comment shows an utter lack of understanding of the issues at hand and what abuses of rights are done in digital spaces.
There are many restaurants, especially the largest fast food chains, who do have you sign an agreement to allow them to do everything you said. And no I don’t eat at those places because I don’t like the practice personally. I don’t buy games if I don’t like the game company or their actions.
But this isn’t about data collection and privacy, its about trying to prevent a game from shutting down because it feels upsetting. I’m sorry but if you are upset about it don’t support the company.
I will agree we need laws around data privacy and collection of course, but thats a different topic.
I don’t really see it as an entirely separate topic. It is still an abuse of rights. In this case, it is an abuse of ownership. If I make a purchase of a good, I should own that good. If the company later decides that they no longer want to support the services which support that purchase, they should be required to provide the opportunity that all purchased goods remain valid and operational. If we take a different good as a stand in, cars, a manufacturer may eventually decide to stop supporting a vehicle, but they do have to sell the component rights to aftermarket manufacturers (or at least make good faith attempts) when they drop support so people who own those vehicles have the chance to maintain and use them. I see this as no different than that. Their dropping of support means that products purchased are removed from use or function without the owner’s consent.
And I know you are going to say “well the EULA says you don’t own it and you agreed to it” which is precicely the problem we are arguing. Purchase should mean ownership and forcing people to agree to whatever you want is wrong. Legislation is required because no company will protect the rights of customers, that is the duty of legal systems.
You don’t have to accept your job. Stop acting like choice doesnt exist, its an obnoxious way of enabling shitty decisions. You aren’t forced to agree to use slack, and you aren’t forced to play a game. You want to have your cake an eat it too.
Although I’d be shocked if someone who argues the things you are is actively supporting shitty game companies so surely you can see when you choose to do something vs not.
Yes, you did agree to these terms. It’s usually in the first few paragraphs. Try looking them up sometimes and look for words like “limited” and “conditional”
In a way, piracy can fix that problem too, since pirate servers existing for ongoing games means they’ll never actually die, unless the server source code gets taken down and nobody archives a copy. I mean, WoW Classic only happened because a private server running vanilla got too big, despite Blizzard bullshit of “You think you want it, but you don’t” and “We don’t have the code to roll back”.
Star Wars Galaxies, Phantasy Star Online, City of Heroes, Warhammer Age of Reckoning all still exist and can be played, despite being “dead”, thanks to private/pirate servers.
Marvel Heroes Omega is one I recently discovered has private servers now. I really miss that one. The whole campaign is playable, but the server will be wiped once 1.0 of the emu comes out, possibly early next year.
That only works if the server code gets leaked or someone reverse engineers it. Both of those options shouldn’t be relied on, especially for more complex or less popular games.
In a way, piracy can fix that problem too, since pirate servers existing for ongoing games means they’ll never actually die
That happened to Ragnarok Online. Iirc the early server code got leaked by hackers (it seems it’s still being developed on GitHub lol), so all throughout the game’s 20+ years lifetime it has had a flourishing private server scene with hundreds of servers still online, so I don’t think it will die in our lifetimes.
If you have to panic because a competitor makes a good game maybe you should reconsider why you’re a game developer in the first place. If it’s not to make the best games you can make, you shouldn’t be a game developer. I’m guessing the developers panicking aren’t the ones who pour their heart and soul into every game they make.
My counter to that is the last 2.5 BioWare games - I say 2.5 because Dreadwolf has been in development for ten years total now and still isn’t out. Andromeda was in development for 5 years. Anthem had money galore thrown at it until it came out. Too many devs, not just BioWare, are wasting years of development time because they haven’t got a clue what they can feasibly make then rush to get things out the door.
Instead of making excuses for why gave dev is the way it is now - a way that isn’t working - maybe look at what Larian did right and ask why more studios aren’t doing that. Early Access is normal used by indies with overinflated budgets? Well, why aren’t larger studios taking advantage of it or using systems like it?
The new normal for a have to be developed is turning into 5+ years, and there’s no excuse for the hot messes that have been coming out lately.
I’d like to ask…why are publishers even required anymore? Games don’t need physical releases anymore. You don’t need a publisher to host a zip file on a web server. Storefronts let indie developers self-publish so why do the big names still fall for the publishers who exist only to enshittify gaming anymore? They bring negative value to the industry.
They bring funding when you have none. Also marketing. How likely are we to have heard of The Plucky Squire without it being featured alongside several other Devolver games?
Because all those things make it possible to release independently, it’s still not easy. Marketing and getting exposure is hard, it’s a totally different skill. With a publisher, you don’t have to worry about any of that - you might even get funding up front.
Personally, I still think it’s worth doing - I’m in that position, and although I’m having a lot of trouble getting off the ground, at least I’m free to follow my visions
But I get why people would do it. A slice of a big pie is worth more than all of a tiny one.
It’s also stressful if it’s not in your skillset - I’ve started using chat gpt to rewrite my announcements and such. Before I’d stress trying to put them together and focused on being clear and honest, but no one was reading them. I find it worse than public speaking, at least when I get on stage I’m too busy to feel self conscious.
The stuff I come up with using chat-gpt is a bit cringe, but at least people read them - sadly corpo speak draws people in
You can see every moment a senior dev went to management and asked for time or money to develop a certain type of interaction and were told no every single time.
I’d even be happy with there being a choice between “either release tools needed to unlock and run services necessary to function OR release all source code to public domain so someone else is able to fix and rebuild the software as necessary”
If I pay for something they shouldn’t be able to disable it
I have a strange feeling about the story for this game. Here’s my prediction:
Lucia breaks out of prison with the help of Jason and an outside character. Lucia and Jason then go on the run turning into a Bonny and Clyde story. Doing heists and robbing people to make some cash to get away from the cops. But then, they rob the wrong person or they were forced to rob the person by the other character and are forced into the drug trade. Maybe the other character was a narco that either Lucia or Jason knew. The FIB or DEA catch wind of this and since Lucia and Jason prove to be very good criminals, they then rope them into taking down the drug trade by robbing and pulling heists.
This goes on until they both eventually find a way out or plan to pull “one last heist” that’ll free them from both the narcos and the FIB or DEA. But then, whoopsie, turns out either Lucia or Jason had some ulterior motive for tagging along with one another. While Lucia or Jason was in prison, they struck a deal with either the narcos or FIB to either escape the country or wipe their record. The catch? They had to bring the other person in, kill them, or just generally betray them.
Then the final act would be one of three options. Lucia kills Jason, Jason kills Lucia, or they both fight the narcos and FIB together Bonnie and Clyde style. Either way, bullets are gonna be flying.
The end game would be only Lucia or Jason are left alive and free of both the narcos and FIB. But, Maybe they became a crime Lord in the drug trade thanks to the other person dying or the FIB unknowingly.
Based on how Rockstar makes their stories, I predict one of the two is gonna bite the bullet by the end.
Best part of GTA V for me was the social satire and Trevor being a total sociopath. The story isn’t anything special, the final mission hits the wrong story beats (it should have ended with the big shootout of government bureaucracy pileup), and the gameplay has some design mistakes (like business income being completely useless, and money in general being a non-issue after the first big heist). It had bugs that prevented story progress without workarounds that were never fixed. It got a lot of praise at the time for having crazy draw distances in an open world game while working on an XBox 360. That’s no longer a big deal.
I don’t think it deserved all the five-star reviews it got back then.
Conversely, if the social satire is on point and the character building is solid, then I’ll be happy.
I think the “escape from prison” part won’t happen, because we see Lucia with an ankle monitor in the promo pic. Implying she’s on parole or something. The rest sounds plausible though.
Not disappointed in the trailer or the game or anything, but I would’ve loved to see a GTA set in a city outside the US. For example in a London-like city or Tokyo or Rome or Paris.
But yeah this new GTA looks sick. They did a great job in capturing the new fucked up Florida vibe.
I’ve always dreamed about this one, London 69 updated in their recent style. I think they talked about this before and the problem is the cops in London didn’t carry guns then so it made it difficult to be a GTA game in the typical sense.
GTA Chinatown Wars was great when it released for Nintendo DS and the PSP. It was actually a really well done update to the GTA 2 style of gameplay that a lot of people missed because it was a portable game. It was available on iOS and Android, too, but not sure if it’s still there.
i dunno if they find enough whacky criminal characters. Seems to be the other countries are still too normal or things are too fucked up for the series to work there.
All 2022 Rome had only 16 homicides… And street are too small and traffic is too bad for a grand theft auto… Rome is good for spy stories, thriller or stealth games. GTA wouldn’t really work
In London not even police has guns… Having someone hanging around with a gun is too unrealistic, more than Harry potter
For Rome, grand theft auto in the 70s is absolutely doable. Full of gangs, terrorists, molotovs.
Grand theft auto Rome 2023 would be about some fat guy bribing politicians to get the work for his company of collect garbage and never do it. The lucrative non-fancy side of crime
The Florida vibe is definitely oozing from this trailer. I can almost smell it, and quite frankly I’m disgusted. Bravo. I would’ve preferred the next GTA being somewhere else, but maybe this it exactly where it belongs.
I always assumed GTA to be a broad parody on modern America. From the beginning it was a new York esque mob-gang warfare, and then moved out to add in more usa adjacent scenery. It’s more about keeping with the theme, let IPs like watchdogs take the initial risks.
I’d like it just set in any new city outside of these 3. It’s always been a rotation of Liberty, Vice and San Andreas, even back to GTA 1 (which was the 3 cities in one)
On the one hand, the ship was one of the most fun parts for me, but on the other, I do wonder if it was a mistake because it makes the game so much more frustrating for anyone who hasn’t been trained on kerbal space program or some other Newtonian space control game to get the hang of it.
It’s like riding a bike, if you know how to do it you have trouble even imaging why it’s hard, but nobody can do it at first, and it takes ages to get the new instincts to actually enjoy it.
The ship was one of the best parts for sure. Once you are competent it feels super liberating how nimbly you can zip around a planet.
The other good parts of that game were progression, and death.
I love that knowledge is the only thing retained between loops - the only currency of value. And I loved the feeling of making new discoveries.
And with death as an expected mechanic, the game doesn’t have to put up any guiderails to save you from it. There are no training wheels. You want to go outside without a spacesuit? Bad idea but we’ll let you. You want to literally lose your ship so you can never get it back? Sure, go for it. You want to fall into a space anomaly and see what happens? Be our guest.
Two more months to go and more than 50% left to reach 1 million signatures. It’s sad to see that with how many people game, this petition has so little reach. I guess we’ll have to wait till Fortnite is shut down, then suddenly many more will care that their childhood game is gone forever.
Unfortunately, I think it was just a lack of awareness that the petition in existed in certain countries where Ross just didn’t have enough reach, possibly due to language barriers. A big push from native speakers of those countries with large audiences, like streamers, could’ve pushed it over the edge.
I don’t know if I fully agree with the petition, but I do think that there are some real problems with the status quo.
I also think that either a legislature or courts need to provide legal criteria for the good or service division with games. I think that there probably need to be “good” games, "serviceʾ games, and possibly even games that have a component of both.
It doesn’t sound like it was as of 2020 in the US, at least on the good/service distinction:
The creator of the Stop Killing Games campaign did a segment about the viability of fighting it in the US in a segment here: youtu.be/DAD5iMe0Xj4?t=1097
tl:dr, the motivated lawyer he talked with on it eventually found a court case that set a precedent that would be extremely difficult to fight in such a pro-corporate court system without extreme amounts of legal funds. This is why the Stop Killing Games campaign is focusing on implementing laws in the EU and other non-US countries.
PC building tutorial: free on YT or just follow the instructions of your case and mainboard…
Software not included so people can look up what Windows officially charges them for showing them ads
That makes 741.51€ or $817.57 for a pretty damn good custom pc… And it could be way less if you went for 2nd hand parts / better deals
I would rather build it myself than buying a cheap prebuilt one from a no name bc a friend of mine tried that and got scammed and realized way too late sadly
That’s not a bad build, really. Although I can’t imagine the air cooler will be necessary for a 4500, much rather use the stock and possibly upgrade to 32gb RAM if in budget. My stock 2000 series Wraith cooler has done me well in 40c summers.
Good call, you wouldn’t need the cooler. Wasn’t sure if the CPU comes packaged with one but apparently it does.
Tbh if I wanted to spend a bit more I personally would go for a 4TB HDD too instead of 2TB and maybe a 1TB M.2 NVMe SSD alongside the 32GB RAM
I made a build that would have included all of that alongside a Ryzen 7 5800X but that build would have been around 1000$ so quite a stretch from the 800$ mark.
(Tbh it would still fair better than the PS5 Pro if you were to purchase PS+ Essential for more than 3 years - with Extra and Premium it’s even worse and since PC games are usually cheaper the free games & discounts don’t really seal the deal for me)
I remember Thor saying that not tying a single player campaign to a server would be bad for developers and Louis barely covered that statement here. How? How would keeping single player and any server-based systems separate hurt the dev? Just plan for this from the beginning. 🤦♂️
Yep. And wtf happened with LAN multiplayer? Even the Beta from Diablo II Ressurected had it, but they REMOVED IT from the release version. I call BS on what this Thor guy is saying.
Blizzard swore off local multiplayer after what happened with StarCraft esports. The Korean leagues ran huge tournaments and made a ton of money off Blizzard’s IP and essentially told them to pound sand. Now everything has to go through their servers so they control the ecosystem.
Same with how Blizzard now owns every custom game you make. They learned their lesson with DOTA/LOL and feel like all that money should be theirs.
All of which seems to indicate that this is a real problem. People can play Brood War forever, but what happens when the SC2 servers go down?
I imagine fans have already found a way to create their own servers for that very instance. Just to ensure this type of stuff cannot happen to those hardcore dedicated fans.
It hurts the developer by impairing the control over the deployed software. This can mean monetization (like microtransactions or some stuff), this can mean “drop-in multiplayer” or whatever it’s called, this can mean a simple friendlist or statistics page, or something along those lines.
It is seldom something different from monetization. Especially in the AAA compartment.
Patrick Breyer and Niklas Nienaß submitted questions to the European Commission on the topic of killing games (the latter in contact with Ross and two EU based lawyers).
EU won’t commit to answering whether games are goods or services.
EULA are probably unfair due to imbalance of rights and obligations between the parties.
Such terminations should be analyzed on a case-by-case basis (preferably by countries rather than EU).
Existing laws don’t seem to cover this issue.
Campaign in France seems to be gaining some traction. Case went to “the highest level where most commercial disputes submitted to DGCCRF never go”.
UK petition was suppose to get a revised response after the initial one was found lacking. Due to upcoming elections all petitions were closed and it might have to be resubmitted.
Also in UK, there’s a plan to report games killed in the last few years to the Competition and Markets Authority starting in August (CMA will get some additional power by then apparently).
No real news from Germany, Canada or Brazil.
Australian petition is over and waiting for a reply. Ross also hired a law firm to represent the issue.
This is a simplified version of simplified version, watch the video for more info.
EULA are probably unfair due to the imbalance of rights and obligations between the parties.
This is the most important amongst the bullet points for me. Companies should not be allowed to hide shady stuff in the wall of text that you are required to accept to play the game that you have already bought.
youtube.com
Ważne