Just had the following email from GOG about account migration for CD Projekt Red games, not quite sure what to make of it. Don’t CDPR own GOG? Why do they need to be separated? What does this mean for the long term future of the services?...
GDPR and pii reasons most likely. It’s a nightmare keeping track of why certain data is on certain accounts. This can vastly simplify the GDPR compliance mechanisms. If your GOG account is merged with your PR account, there is probably significantly more “sensitive” data (CC numbers, addresses, etc) in the GOG account. This probably exempts some data that either cdpr or gog tracks from deletion or retrieval requests.
Separation of data between accounts makes them fall under different retrieval requirements.
As one account, a request for all of the data from that account contains both chunks. Separation of those accounts separates the need to accommodate requests for data from one on the other.
It can also mean that internally they may have a sufficient mechanism that data that was previously identifying to no longer being identifying (breaking userid to data pairings for example) which is sufficient to “anonymize” the data that it no longer needs to be reported or maintained.
Wow. Heaven forbid I used a joke from the largest online chess influencers following when there are multiple threads on this post from the same community…
The whoosh is part of the joke… Which apparently you didn’t know. Also, it isn’t insular. It’s literally the opposite of that. I thought they were participating in the joke until they replied in such a negative way.
I don’t understand why you are so upset about this and why you are so derogatory towards what is potentially the largest generation of chess players proportionally to their generation size to have ever existed.
Excellent. It looks like we both explained ourselves. You appear to understand my position, and when I ask for clarification further on yours you tell me that it is my fault. Thanks for pointing out my flaws without clarification.
This should be illegal, companies should be forced to open-source games (or at least provide the code to people who bought it) if they decide to discontinue it, so people can preserve it on their own....
Edit2: Jesus people, please engage with the actual argument… not some strawman argument I didn’t make.
I must be missing something here.
Company buys land, designs and builds theme park
Company operates theme park.
Theme park isn’t profitable.
Company closes theme park
???
Company must give away designs and schematics to theme park rides for free so people can build theme park themselves that might be in direct competition with new theme park company is trying to build???
Edit: I do think that abandonware should be opensourced at some point… but I don’t understand this level of entitlement.
Online only play models are difficult for the consumer. I personally don’t play that many online only games for partly this reason… and partly because I don’t play many online games at all.
After reading the rest of your comment, you are reading the wrong thing from it, the physical parts of the amusement park would be the extant binaries you already have. They still run the same as they did before, but without maintenance they will deteriorate and become non-functional or only partially operational. In an online system there are server bits that might not be available to the end user and those pieces also need an operator.
To make a slightly more specific analogy, with a water park we could imagine a separate water treatment facility that would need to be run to keep the water in the water park safe. That treatment facility could also have plans and schematics.
The actual facilities in these cases are not independently valuable in the software case. It’s the plans and schematics (the source code) that has value… but in both cases you only need the facilities and operators/maintenance to allow people to attend the water park/play the game.
Could the game company also give away a physical treatment plants so that an independent organization could buy their own servers and run their own game servers so that they could still play in their own private water parks? Sure.
Should they? Maybe. But it’s specifically the entitlement to the plans/schematics that gets me…
Why would I need to elaborate on an argument I didn’t make? I don’t understand? I made my argument, if you don’t understand it, I don’t know what you don’t understand?
My argument directly engaged with the original post that game developers should be forced to open source their software. The analogy you made has nothing to do with open source software, it has to do with payment models…
Edit: and ops position doesn’t make any claims about payment models…
CD Projekt Red are splitting from GOG somehow? angielski
Just had the following email from GOG about account migration for CD Projekt Red games, not quite sure what to make of it. Don’t CDPR own GOG? Why do they need to be separated? What does this mean for the long term future of the services?...
Has also maintained an active playerbase for 1500+ years (startrek.website) angielski
This should be illegal (lemmy.world) angielski
This should be illegal, companies should be forced to open-source games (or at least provide the code to people who bought it) if they decide to discontinue it, so people can preserve it on their own....