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.
I call em full version demos. Specifically because I buy when it’s good. The 2 hour steam thing sometimes, just isn’t enough to really know. It usually is tho.
Out of the games I’ve been fortunate to work on, 1/7 require internet, and the 1 was my first industry job as QA. Everything else has been mobile, online required. 5/7 are no longer playable / removed from the internet.
It makes me sad because my kids will never play a bunch of things I made. I can’t revisit them nostalgically. If I had made something in the 90s, it would be preserved still.
I played the cards dealt to me to follow a dream and make a living, but I wish the industry wasn’t like this. The money has always been a role, but nowadays, it’s distorted so badly.
For sone of these games piracy would solve nothing. How wouldI run an 8vs8 PvP mission in DCUO that players are required to do if there aren’t 16 players on the server? If Im hosting it offline that content is still dead.
Private WoW servers thrived. Much of the endgame content required 40 players to collaborate for hours at a time, and they have kept their own dream running for well over a decade.
You should have the option to find and play with others long after corporate servers are abandoned. Whether or not there are other players immediately available is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Edit - and you’re all over this thread licking boots and saying “you signed the agreement!”
Thanks. We know how license agreements work. They are included in the thing we want to change, when we talk about changing the industry. We want to stop allowing bullshit license agreements. The exact same way many of us want Right to Repair for people who bought tractors with proprietary software.
It also allows the game to revive itself. Those 40 players playing pirated WoW could introduce more people to the game. And at the very least, it allows it be run in the future if ever historians should need access.
Nice use of the word “entitled” - really sums up your stance on the consumer/business relationship.
The consumer is “entitled” for protesting predatory or unethical business practices.
The consumer is “entitled” for opposing the ongoing enshittification of entire industries.
The consumer is “entitled” for wanting businesses to not be able to legally hide behind unsustainable licensing practices that provide no value to society and further entrench the ever-growing rent/subscription model that is squeezing people dry for no reason.
The entire point - the entire fucking point - is that these licenses are not okay. So, no, I don’t pay for these licenses, but I don’t think anyone should be able to pay for these licenses, because I don’t think anyone should be able to “sell” these licenses.
These licenses - like many unethical business practices - put the corporation that offers them at a financial advantage over the corporations that don’t.
Regulations - in every industry - should level the playing field. They can allow ethical business practices to be viable and competitive, instead of being liabilities and risks. The copyright/IP system is an example of those regulations instead being weaponized against the consumer, and needs a massive overhaul.
And guess what? In a functioning society, consumers areentitled to get what they want. They areentitled to oppose unethical business practices, and use their collective power to try to stop it. Why the fuck would we want it the other way around? Why are corporations entitled to get whatever they want?
We have every goddamn right to protest those business practices whether or not we do business with those companies - just as we have every right to protest unethical or discriminatory hiring practices by companies that we don’t work for. Even if plenty of people applied for those jobs and signed those contracts, we have every right to protest anyway.
It is entitlement. When I signed up to play Fortnite BR I agreed to a limited license to play the game as they intended to run it. If Epic kills Fortnite do I have the right to force them to make a version of BR be playable offline? No, because that isn’t what we agreed to.
Nothing about this is predatory. You simply aren’t getting what you want and are throwing a tantrum over it
Everything about the “rent/subscription” model is predatory, but we weren’t even talking about the truly fucked up stuff, like deeply unethical microtransaction marketing to children ala Fortnite.
Amazing that you think its okay for children to sign contracts where they agree that any money they give to Epic is gone forever, and that any worthless digital assets they are manipulated into purchasing can be voided and deleted at any time without any recompense!
(Lol inb4 “it’s the parents job to monitor their kids at all times in case a predatory corporation sneaks capitalism and FOMO advertising into their apparently harmless child-friendly free-to-play game or app”)
But sure, keep on defending predatory corporations! Enjoy the taste of boots!
I’ll be over here advocating for stronger consumer business protections! Sorry, I mean, I’ll be throwing an entitled tantrum lol.
“ Amazing that you think its okay for children to sign contracts where they agree that any money they give to Epic is gone forever, and that any worthless digital assets they are manipulated into purchasing can be voided and deleted at any time without any recompense!”
At no point have I said anything that would lead to this conclusion.
For the record Fortnite is rated “T” for teens because of the microtransactions.
Your “inB4” is moronic. It IS parent’s job to do this. If they don’t have the energy then dont get them a system.
You as an adult are responsible for the agreements you make. It is childish to pretend otherwise.
You absolutely said everything that leads to this conclusion.
People sign agreements with Fortnite that give Epic the right to sell them microtransactions that don’t belong to the purchaser. They also give Epic the right to take down Fortnite and therefore remove access to any of the content that they paid for. This is the license that every player agrees to when they play the game.
You claim that protesting the usage of that license is “throwing a tantrum.”
Lol I forgot that teens aren’t children, apparently. That makes the microtransaction okay, because the players are (supposed to be) teenagers. As if teenagers aren’t vulnerable to manipulation, or as if the ESRB actually does a goddamn thing anyway.
Just couldn’t help yourself, could you? You just have to defend the corporation’s right to advertise to children, and blame everything on the parents. We already had this fight with cigarrettes, you know. People would say that it’s the parents’ fault if kids were attracted to cigarettes.
How did that turn out? That’s right. Nearly every developed country in the world agreed that advertising that shit to children was not okay. Full goddamn stop.
“Oh but it’s on the parents to make sure capitalism doesn’t poison their childrens’ bodies and minds through cartoon villain levels of social manipulation”, you say.
Corporations advertising harmful shit to children should not be tolerated under any circumstances, and functioning societies are entitled to make that a goddamn law, which they have done before, and can do again.
No I claim that agreeing to those conditions and then complaining when they do not alter those terms in ways you want them to is childish entitlement. Do you see the difference? If you have a problem with the license you do not agree to it and you do not play the game.
The rest of your post is just more of the same whining about why you can’t have things the way you want them when they are not being offered on your terms to begin with.
Finally, you are complaining about video games. You should keep that in mind so you have better perspective on this.
So… exactly what I said, then? You think Epic’s licenses are okay, and it’s entitlement to complain about them. I genuinely don’t see the difference you’re trying to describe.
Lol but enjoy defending unethical business practices, I guess. Keep imagining that I’ve bought these licenses at all, and keep imagining that it’s entitlement to want things to change for people’s best interests.
I hope the corporations thank you for defending their right to walk all over consumers. Manipulating children into gambling and renting worthless digital products is “just video games” after all. I’ll try to keep that perspective in mind.
You sound mad now, too. I don’t need to explain anything, go re-read the conversation. I can’t make you see someone else’s perspective, but I can mock you for being so obtuse.
Ahh, the pinnacle of internet discourse - pretending that one wins an argument by minor differences in tone, rather than content. Only… suggesting over and over that someone is throwing an entitled tantrum certainly sets a tone, don’t it?
Strange, that I am the only emotional one here. Perhaps if you take a deep breath, and read my comments slower? Maybe ask a chatbot to read them in the voice of David Attenborough or Morgan Freeman?
Maybe you’re right, and I’ve just gone deaf from all this blind rage. At this rate I’ll never achieve my dreams of being acutie…
Right, and the way licenses work should be illegal. If I purchase something, I should be able to do whatever I want with it, for as long as I choose to. That’s what purchase means.
If I rent/subscribe to something, that only lasts for the duration of my contract.
Sure, I’m not entitled to get things the way I want, but am entitled to get things the way they were advertised. If I buy a game, I should be able to play it even if the publisher shops selling it. They have options on how to handle that, either by releasing the server code so I can self-host it, removing the server bits so I can play offline, or continuing to keep servers online for existing owners.
If I rent/subscribe to something, that only lasts for the duration of my contract.
Just to reinforce your point, if you rent/subscribe to something, the duration should be known at the time. The fact that they can pull the plug at any time without a prior warning is what makes it a scam.
You know you bring up a really great point. We’ve finally hit post-scarcity in an industry (information) and look at what it has done to us. Are we really ready for this in other areas yet. Should we use this as a chance to figure out how to integrate such a creation into society such that the next time this happens it doesn’t kill us all.
i buy physical because i genuinely think nintendo is one of the last good game devs remaining. but switch 2 is just download cards. i will not be purchasing it.
Not in 10+ years when you can't download the rest of the game from the servers because they don't put the whole game on the cartridge anymore. Not to mention patches and DLC aren't on the cartridge either.
have you seen any of their pokemon releases the past years? its actually embarassing how bad the games are in terms of quality and polish, for a game that is the biggest IP in the world.
they do own the pokemon IP though, so even though they dont develop the game, i’d argue its still their fault if the game turns out ass. its time they put some stress on gamefreak to do better.
AFAIK, most PS3 (and even PS4) / Xbox 360 games will play and function with just the disc, an internet connection will just let them download updates to the game.
It was PS5 and Xbox One where the discs became glorified physical download codes, and did not actually contain the entire game.
Im honestly so sick of online games that should be offline. I just got a few switch games to pass time on my breaks, and half of them require internet access. One of them is literally a bubble shooter.
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.
And it’s pretty good! I had fun with the time I put into it, though it did feel a little bloated in the same way their Pathfinder RPG did. I think it’s a consequence of their Kickstarter success for these games, which just kept talking on more stretch goals.
The good news is there is a LOT of game present for those that enjoy it.
yea I think people where expecting a new DLC for it, but it seems they were also cooking up an entirely new game. Should be good, their CRPGs are always worth it (so far), even if they are not perfect.
Why’s that? I enjoyed cyberpunk. I mean, of course it was released with a fuck ton of problems, but that’s not on the studio, it’s on the money people behind the studio forcing them to release and start making their money back.
I haven’t but that’s what I’ve heard from reviews. I’ve watched gameplay and long playthrough for the game on YouTube and it seems good… Now after all this time, with the extra money spent on the DLC. Which is why if I ever do play it I’m going to Pirate it because they don’t deserve my money. They should honestly go out of business
Bruh that’s literally what reviewers are for. They tell you if the game is worth it or not and I did my research. I also watch long playthroughs of it and saw how bad it was
Sorry I just don’t support companies that release broken mess on release. If I ever play the game then I’m pirating it because they don’t deserve any money
That’s good for you a lot of people still enjoyed it. I’m just saying if I ever do play it I’m going to Pirate it cuz they don’t deserve my money or anyone’s
youtube.com
Gorące