>#Objectives
>This initiative calls to require publishers that sell or license videogames to consumers in the European Union (or related features and assets sold for videogames they operate) to leave said videogames in a functional (playable) state.
>Specifically, the initiative seeks to prevent the remote disabling of videogames by the publishers, before providing reasonable means to continue functioning of said videogames without the involvement from the side of the publisher.
>The initiative does not seek to acquire ownership of said videogames, associated intellectual rights or monetization rights, neither does it expect the publisher to provide resources for the said videogame once they discontinue it while leaving it in a reasonably functional (playable) state
AvalancheMaster on
My biggest issue with this initiative is the framing that revolves around games, and not software as a whole. Other than that, this sub is delusional in its hostile reaction to the initiative. I’ve signed it myself and while it’s far from the most pressing issue the EU is facing right now, I hope that it leads to a meaningful change.
Koszulium on
Not on board with everything about this, as I’ve argued on the DT regarding specifically online multiplayer components (private dedicated servers are a dead end most likely due to tech and regulatory changes most likely). But there is a kernel of good here.
The industry has been pushing egregious practices trying to make single-player games (*The Crew* is a bit of a hybrid IIRC but can be played alone) always-online for the past decade. Ubisoft did this on release for *Assassin’s Creed II* as explicit DRM on PC, with no real advantage to the player, and got backlash. Since then they’ve been melding in actual online features in these single-player games which cannot function without. This had been the case for I think *Diablo 3*, the *HITMAN* reboot trilogy and several others. Every time, this has sparked concern from consumers which the industry has readily dismissed, sometimes with vague promises of last-day patches to enable offline play before servers are shut off.
I think these are bad practices. I understand companies cannot support these games and keep servers on forever. But online components that *have to be accessible* at all times in a single-player experience is just not good design for a consumer product people shell out around 70-80 USD for. Just the idea of games conservancy (just like movie or music conservancy) is hobbled by these practices.
5 Comments
Gamers rise up.
In all seriousness, I wonder what Neolibs think about this. Where would you draw the line in a new policy?
https://preview.redd.it/6tmiin5h5ebf1.png?width=640&format=png&auto=webp&s=83751a7987fb5ae0f35ae5cc28e3bedbc5e6a8a2
have you considered some games need to be killed
The initiative:
>#Objectives
>This initiative calls to require publishers that sell or license videogames to consumers in the European Union (or related features and assets sold for videogames they operate) to leave said videogames in a functional (playable) state.
>Specifically, the initiative seeks to prevent the remote disabling of videogames by the publishers, before providing reasonable means to continue functioning of said videogames without the involvement from the side of the publisher.
>The initiative does not seek to acquire ownership of said videogames, associated intellectual rights or monetization rights, neither does it expect the publisher to provide resources for the said videogame once they discontinue it while leaving it in a reasonably functional (playable) state
My biggest issue with this initiative is the framing that revolves around games, and not software as a whole. Other than that, this sub is delusional in its hostile reaction to the initiative. I’ve signed it myself and while it’s far from the most pressing issue the EU is facing right now, I hope that it leads to a meaningful change.
Not on board with everything about this, as I’ve argued on the DT regarding specifically online multiplayer components (private dedicated servers are a dead end most likely due to tech and regulatory changes most likely). But there is a kernel of good here.
The industry has been pushing egregious practices trying to make single-player games (*The Crew* is a bit of a hybrid IIRC but can be played alone) always-online for the past decade. Ubisoft did this on release for *Assassin’s Creed II* as explicit DRM on PC, with no real advantage to the player, and got backlash. Since then they’ve been melding in actual online features in these single-player games which cannot function without. This had been the case for I think *Diablo 3*, the *HITMAN* reboot trilogy and several others. Every time, this has sparked concern from consumers which the industry has readily dismissed, sometimes with vague promises of last-day patches to enable offline play before servers are shut off.
I think these are bad practices. I understand companies cannot support these games and keep servers on forever. But online components that *have to be accessible* at all times in a single-player experience is just not good design for a consumer product people shell out around 70-80 USD for. Just the idea of games conservancy (just like movie or music conservancy) is hobbled by these practices.