Argue with Americans about how it's a sin against the God of Capital to stop a corpo from raping you

[MrSlongDong]

and people smarter than all of us will discuss it

The Commission? the EU parliament?

That's the gayest and most ridiculous thing you have ever said in your life. You deserve a pink sticker for this one

 

[Arnold Swollenmember]

The Commission? the EU parliament?

That's the gayest and most ridiculous thing you have ever said in your life. You deserve a pink sticker for this one

I mostly wanted to say that they were smarter than you specifically, which isn't a high bar, but I was trying to be polite by including my retarded ass too

Discussing things with you here might have as much impact to the initiative as us trying to discuss tomorrow's weather. You can either sit and wait for the EU to do whatever they wanna do, or keep getting called a retard here after every post you make

 

[PyrrhicRustle]

The only thing scary about this post is the anime because it made you gay.

Boondocks isn’t anime you retard.

 

[MrSlongDong]

Has to be troll account, he's repeating that line that SKG will force companies to run servers forever.

People saying "has to be a troll" it's exactly like libshits calling everybody a Russian bot.

I'm not repeating the line. It's one thing or the other. Either you force them to run their servers forever or you take over the servers. If you don't want an online multiplayer game to go down that's pretty much your only two options. That's really what the petition is getting at amongst over things (because the petition is shitty gamer rage and not logical). It's very lazy that every time somebody points out an issue you go "that's not what he is suggesting". Ok... maybe it's not exactly what the prophet said in the mighty video that you are all required to watch but it's implied and every time somebody throws an argument at you, you move a little bit to the left and you go "you have to throw the ball AT me, retard." OK great, I'm done.

I have said pretty much what I wanted to say and what I think is the correct view on this. If you want to rage wank all around my posts please be my guest. I'm sure giving me the "dumb" sticker is hitting the reward mechanism in your brain and providing some of that sweet sweet dopamine release. Have one on me pal

 

[RandomTwitterGuy]

I. Tensions between the petition and multiplayer online games

The most successful games today are online multiplayer games. If the player base decreases below a certain level and it’s not profitable to keep the servers up, the game is going to be shut down. There is just no way around it.

When I brought that up, in the Jason Hall thread, I was instantly banned, along with many others. One person who responded to me pointed out that, sometimes, studios will shut down a game even though there is still a fairly large player base and that’s not fair. Here, we are talking about purely strategical decisions to shut down a game to create a “fear of missing out” and yes, that is shitty marketing. Obviously if you paid 70 dollars (or 60 euros) for a game and the company deactivate it remotely within 6 months of your purchase because they are Ubisoft, then honestly, you should get a refund (and never buy their games again). I’m not a libertarian, that’s just dishonest. But frankly, that’s not what we are talking about. Because the games that are being put online and then removed in this fashion are not usually games that you paid to own. And this is where the core of the argument collapses for me.

The issue is that right now, they can sell you a game for 70 moneys and cut support whenever they want, and there is no legal recourse. That is what SKG aims to establish, ensuring a clear legal framework for this, so they have to provide at least some basic end-of-life services.

It’s not that “you own nothing”, it’s that you did not pay for the game. Most modern video games operate under a free-to-play model that depends entirely on (1) active player base and (2) in-game purchases (which are optional) NOT upfront sale. So you can’t apply the logic you applied 20 years ago to your purchase of a video game because you’re not buying the game in the first place and if you’re paying a fixed charge, it’s probably on a monthly subscription basis. Read the terms, this is not the same as purchasing a physical copy of a finite tangible product and you don’t have a right to it staying online forever. In fact, I would argue that you don’t want that (but you don’t know it). Whether it’s Fortnite, PUBG, or Apex Legends these games are an ongoing experience that require constant maintenance which comes with a cost. For these games the publishers don’t charge for access to the base game but rely on players buying cosmetic items, season passes, and other shit that personally I don’t buy because I’m very big brain and I get to play games for free (not Fortnite though).

Your are littraly doing the whole "YOU will own nothing because the big fuck corporations told you that you will own nothing." What SKG is trying to do is ensure that when a game is nearing its end, they must at least allow for basic access to what people have paid for.
They don't have to fix bugs, run servers, or perform any other tasks. Basic access to what people paid for is all that is asked.

Technological progress has always come with a degree of natural loss and obsolescence. When television formats evolved and display technology changed, old consoles became impossible to use without additional adapters or workarounds.

When a new TV format was made, the original producer did not come and break your TV.
No one is asking for support in perpetuity. No one is asking them to manufacture spare parts or undertake any other extraordinary measures, but what we are asking is that they can maintain at least basic services, so that the companies don't have to take any additional steps.

 

[MrSlongDong]

The issue is that right now, they can sell you a game for 70 moneys and cut support whenever they want, and there is no legal recourse. That is what SKG aims to establish, ensuring a clear legal framework for this, so they have to provide at least some basic end-of-life services.

That's not what I'm saying. I clearly wrote, if you paid upfront, 70 dollars to access a game and access is revoked, then you should get a refund. You don't need new laws for this, this is already a right you have.

When you install a modern online-only or live-service game, you’re not actually buying a permanent offline product, you’re buying access under terms that clearly say service can end. Usually these games are distributed under a free to play model. I have already explained this. I'm not going to repeat the same thing over again. You can just back up a page or two, sorry.

Your are littraly doing the whole "YOU will own nothing because the big fuck corporations told you that you will own nothing." What SKG is trying to do is ensure that when a game is nearing its end, they must at least allow for basic access to what people have paid for.
They don't have to fix bugs, run servers, or perform any other tasks. Basic access to what people paid for is all that is asked.

I'm not saying this... ‘basic access to what people paid for’ I keep hearing this and you have no idea what this means. First it completely ignores the free to play model, second, you don't define basic access and you can't because it will vary depending on every game, and thirdly, you can't force them to do that. If they want to close shop, they don't have to make sure that you can still use the facility.

The SKG proposal implies that developers give out enough code and tools for people to recreate the ecosystem themselves (on private servers for example)- or redesign their games to make this possible. That’s not ‘basic access,’ that’s forcing studios to hand over proprietary systems or spend time rewriting their product for free after they’ve stopped supporting it.

And it completely ignores the fact that nobody is entitled to a never-ending product if the entire value depends on an online infrastructure the developer controls. If you don’t want a game that might go dark, don’t play always-online multiplayer games. Demanding mandatory unlocks at the end of a product’s life is like saying a restaurant has to hand you its recipes and kitchen when it closes down. It’s just not how this works

Bottom line: if you don’t pay, you don’t own. And if you pay a subscription for a service that requires ongoing maintenance and the terms clearly state they can end the service at any time, then that’s the deal. The idea that “big corporations are telling me I will own nothing” is just a larp. This has always been how subscriptions work. If you don’t like subscriptions, simply don’t buy them. I hate the political posturing around this, it's like Greer acting like some kind of champion for the “little guy.” It’s just performative and in the meantime you're begging the eurocrats to throw you a bone

When a new TV format was made, the original producer did not come and break your TV.
No one is asking for support in perpetuity. No one is asking them to manufacture spare parts or undertake any other extraordinary measures, but what we are asking is that they can maintain at least basic services, so that the companies don't have to take any additional steps.

Again, if you paid 70 dollars for a game that can be played offline, single player and the company destroy it remotely then you should be able to get a refund. No need for new laws here.

With online multiplayer games, the game experience depends on servers and infrastructure maintained by the company. When they decide to shut down those servers, the game literally stops working for players, that's not them actively destroying the game. They just step out of the game and they don't have an obligation to give you the keys. if they want to, they can, but usually they will only do it if it benefits their business in some ways (like id Software did with Doom in 1997). It's not something you should or even can force them to do in every case.

I have already said all of this because people have been arguing with me about this for 3 pages so you can also check my previous posts. At this point we're just circling back to the beginning

 

[snowdunes]

all that shit

Ok, let me put this in this way:

I either want to be able to buy a game (for real), or the whole market can crash and burn. That's the dilemma, no middle ground. If this doesn't go through, I hope that as many game devs suffha from crunching untill they kill themselves and get raped by some imported DEI rape-ape. The gayming industry is already as pozzed as it can get with niggers, hoes and troons. If this petition results in more games getting killed off, good!

For me, it's not about the games, it's about the principle.

 

[30+GameOvers]

People saying "has to be a troll" it's exactly like libshits calling everybody a Russian bot.

You're a Pirate Software aka Maldavius Figtree sock unless you prove otherwise, which I doubt
BTW happy 1 million votes for the initiative, something tells me we will easily reach it before the end of the week.

 

[MrSlongDong]

You're a Pirate Software aka Maldavius Figtree sock unless you prove otherwise, which I doubt
BTW happy 1 million votes for the initiative, something tells me we will easily reach it before the end of the week.

I wasn't the only one saying this. A bunch of people got threadbanned from the Jason Hall thread just for disagreeing with the petition or some aspects of it. It's really dumb and it's not free speech. What is the point of this forum if a mod can just delete everything he doesn't like or doesn't agree with.

If you keep doing this and ganging up on people who go against the majority opinion then you'll be left with only people who agree with you no matter what. Sure you can say nigger all you want but that's just a word. If I can't say what I think, what's the point. At least here I'm able to say these things and if I didn't get banned I would have moved on.

The reason I wrote this bunch of crap is because I was unfairly silenced in the first place. Not that I don't believe in it, but I wouldn't have been bothered in the first place.

 

[Tanner Glass]

When you install a modern online-only or live-service game, you’re not actually buying a permanent offline product, you’re buying access under terms that clearly say service can end. Usually these games are distributed under a free to play model. I have already explained this. I'm not going to repeat the same thing over again. You can just back up a page or two, sorry.

Right. That's a thing people don't want.

If I buy a shirt from Hanes and after ~6 years it starts to fall apart and Hanes no longer sells the shirt. I'm legally allowed to buy a thread and needle and fix the shirt. They don't have any legal right to tell me what I can or cannot do with the product once I've purchased it. Same thing with my car, my house, literally everything else I own. Video games are not some magical exception to this rule and if I want to play a modded version of game I bought then there's 0 discussion to have - even if that modded version is just going to a 3rd party server providing the same functionality.

Free to play isn't some magical "get out of this" card either. It's a business model. They offered the game to me (and everyone) for free with the hook of it being tied to their shop and that's the business model they chose. Similarly if I purchase a car from Toyota and then 3 years later they decide "oh we didn't sell it for the right price" they don't have a legal right to come and disable my car for their poor business decisions or legally restrict me from keeping it working, even if I have to purchase parts from not-Toyota. "Free to play" also isn't free, free-to-play games make huge amounts of money (which is why it's a popular business model) so they're clearly getting what they want from me in this transaction.

And it completely ignores the fact that nobody is entitled to a never-ending product if the entire value depends on an online infrastructure the developer controls. If you don’t want a game that might go dark, don’t play always-online multiplayer games. Demanding mandatory unlocks at the end of a product’s life is like saying a restaurant has to hand you its recipes and kitchen when it closes down. It’s just not how this works

Right, this is a terrible metaphor. If a burger restaurant closes - another person is allowed to open up a burger restaurant in the same location and give it a try. They're allowed to try and recreate the menu and include things the old clientele would have wanted. The old restaurant isn't allowed to just tell people what they can and cannot eat after they close or actively try and prevent people from eating burgers because their business model didn't work.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

You can't expect the next battle royal game to be able to predict whether it will be successful or not or whether it will stay online. That's why these games are usually free to play.

Now if you are talking about a game that you paid upfront for it, then yes I agree, you should have certainty or get a refund for your purchase. If the petition was drafted a little bit more accurately to reflect this, I would agree to it.

Imagine it would have been applied to any other business. Do I even need to make the comparison? And again, an illegal contract is not a magical get out of jail card.

First I don't agree that it would be easy. For massive games like GTA, it's not necessarily an easy conversion to operate. And also more fundamentally, it ignores the simple fact that these games are not juts technical things

Doesn't fucking matter. As long as its feasible it's enough.

 

[Two Dollars]

I wasn't the only one saying this. A bunch of people got threadbanned from the Jason Hall thread just for disagreeing with the petition or some aspects of it. It's really dumb and it's not free speech. What is the point of this forum if a mod can just delete everything he doesn't like or doesn't agree with.

If you keep doing this and ganging up on people who go against the majority opinion then you'll be left with only people who agree with you no matter what. Sure you can say nigger all you want but that's just a word. If I can't say what I think, what's the point. At least here I'm able to say these things and if I didn't get banned I would have moved on.

The reason I wrote this bunch of crap is because I was unfairly silenced in the first place. Not that I don't believe in it, but I wouldn't have been bothered in the first place.

Are you sure it doesn’t have anything to do with you sperging for pages on end about strawmen that have either been disproven or were never argued in the first place, all while constantly repeating that everyone else is the problem and you’re a good boy who dindu nuffin?

 

[MrSlongDong]

I'm just passing through. MrSlongDong

Hey thanks man. Appreciate the input. A lot of the answers were cropped but I think I got the point.

I would say, from the get go, I can't get onboard because the freedom to do business is also freedom to stop doing business or to stop doing something within your business. One is the collateral of the other. This kind of freedom is why you have video games in the US (or China) and we don't in Europe (and I see how there is a tension with ownership). I'm glad you picked up on this point because no one else did and it's really fundamental to me. I'm not saying all this because I want to start arguments, I took one look at this petition and from the start I thought, this is gonna affect innovation and creativity. And everybody is just seeing it as "the poor gamers against the big bad corpos" and I think that's the wrong way of looking at it. The freedom to develop your business model and make money from your product is why you have anything at all.

Europe has nothing which is not either American or Chinese made. We make nothing which is not raw material and food (to some extend). We don't make phones, we don't make computers, we didn't come up with the Internet or AI tech, we don't make video games or movies. Everything here is the same comfortable used shit that you have seen a million time before. Every TV show looks like it has been made in the 60s.

To me the free to play model is really critical to understand why this proposal doesn't work. I don't think micro-transactions in a game, qualify as buying a game. People buy skins and stuff for the social element of the game. If people want a doll dressing experience, then sure, i guess you can give them a lobby where they can continue buying clothes for their oshi and spin it around but I'm not sure that's really what most people are after. That being said if enough people wanted this experience I'm sure companies would be more than happy to set up a lobby and sell cosmetics without any gameplay experience. Again, no need to force them to do it. But if it's not commercially viable to do that, however, you can't force them to lose money.

When they say 'No. They can end support and turn off servers whenever they want. But they have to do it in a responsible way' - that the 'responsible way' that's causing me problem. The moment you start saying 'I just want you to do it in a responsible way' you open the door for unlimited state intervention. I think it's crazy to look at the thing you love the most (clearly... video games) and go to the Commission, which is Satan, and say "kill it"

It won't be the first time. DRM Laws. That's why we have DMCAs. Rent control fucked us over on a scale unimaginable. The cookie consent rules just mean I can't access half the websites on the Internet and does it help? No. None of this stuff ever helped anybody. Every time you go to the feds asking for protection they fuck us in the ass. And they will take their sweet time with this one, because that's a good one, imagine that, gamers asking for rules, oh boy, they'll stick it up to us, all the way, with lots of lub. And then one day we'll all get to stand in a no man's land with a little piece of paper that says "you have the right" and a sore asshole.

Anyway, I'm just ranting because I like throwing ideas at the Internet. I'm sure it won't be that terrible
(right?)

 

[MrSlongDong]

Right, this is a terrible metaphor. If a burger restaurant closes - another person is allowed to open up a burger restaurant in the same location and give it a try. They're allowed to try and recreate the menu and include things the old clientele would have wanted. The old restaurant isn't allowed to just tell people what they can and cannot eat after they close or actively try and prevent people from eating burgers because their business model didn't work.

No it's not actually, it's a very good metaphor because nobody is saying you cannot make your own game and do all the things you say. In fact that's precisely what we should be doing instead of asking for more rules - we should make more things that coincide with your expectations.

The distinction is still that you cannot use that specific restaurant's kitchen and make McDonald's hamburgers. You can make your own burgers and make them taste good.

If I buy a shirt from Hanes and after ~6 years it starts to fall apart and Hanes no longer sells the shirt. I'm legally allowed to buy a thread and needle and fix the shirt. They don't have any legal right to tell me what I can or cannot do with the product once I've purchased it. Same thing with my car, my house, literally everything else I own. Video games are not some magical exception to this rule and if I want to play a modded version of game I bought then there's 0 discussion to have - even if that modded version is just going to a 3rd party server providing the same functionality.

That, on the other hand, is a bad metaphor. When you buy a shirt, you physically own the whole thing. You can fix it with a needle and thread because the raw materials and tools are accessible and you don’t need Hanes to make it wearable again — you already have 100% of it. If you want your games to be fully self-contained so you can ‘fix’ them forever, buy ones that work entirely offline, or push publishers for proper offline modes upfront. That's why my metaphors (which are correct) always describe some sort of facilities that you walk in and derive your entertainment from, like a restaurant, or a casino or an ice rink. Should l go on? An online multiplayer game is like that.

You buy the ticket (or not because maybe they just want you inside so that you buy drinks from the machine) and then you get to use the ice rink. You don't have a right to run the facility if the business shut down. You can set up your own facility though

 

[Tanner Glass]

No it's not actually it's a very good metaphor because nobody is saying you cannot make your own game and do all the things you say. In fact that's precisely what we should be doing instead of asking for more rules - we should make more things that coincide with your expectations.

The distinction is still that you cannot use that specific restaurant's kitchen and make McDonald's hamburgers. You can make your own burgers and make them taste good.

Quite literally you are allowed to make McDonald's hamburgers. They aren't some special magical hamburgers forged by Ronald McDonald himself - you can use the same grills, the same meat, the same spices. You can rent or buy an old McDonalds location and aren't required to repaint the roof or anything. The only thing you cannot do is call it "McDonalds".

You make it sound like it's some magical thing to keep a game running - quite literally it just requires a framework of enabling players to host their own servers - which is not a new or novel concept. You can literally still play Team Fortress Classic from 1999 because players are allowed to stand up their own servers for it. Or Quake 3 arena and so on. This was the standard 25 years ago and was removed for virtually no reason other then "it makes us more money to limit consumer options".

Even for "bigger" games - players figure it out. You can play Phantasy Star Online on private servers, World of Warcraft classic existed first on private servers, and so on. All with 0 resources taken from the developer to help in anyway. I bought these games and should be able to play them on whatever server I want to, even if the developer gives up on it.

 

[MrSlongDong]

Quite literally you are allowed to make McDonald's hamburgers. They aren't some special magical hamburgers forged by Ronald McDonald himself - you can use the same grills, the same meat, the same spices. You can rent or buy an old McDonalds location and aren't required to repaint the roof or anything. The only thing you cannot do is call it "McDonalds".

Yes but there is no law that requires McDonalds to leave you the facility for this purpose. If they want to demolish their restaurant, and leave town it's their problem. If they decide to sell you the franchise, it's also their choice. You also can’t literally ask for their secret sauce recipe if they keep it secret, same with the code. If it's not public, they're not going to give it to you for free so that you can run your private server. If they want to do that, or sell to you, great, but you can't force them. Go make your own!

You can imitate a McDonald’s burger in your own kitchen, just like people can reverse-engineer a private server. But you want McDonald’s to hand you the sauce recipe, the kitchen blueprints, a supply chain and the facility - for free. That’s what you’re asking when you say publishers must give out server code for every shutdown. If you want to buy stuff from them and they agree to sell to you that's a different point.

You can literally still play Team Fortress Classic from 1999 because players are allowed to stand up their own servers for it.

Great - you shouldn't force companies to do that. That something that some studios can decide to do. I used this example myself with Doom

I bought these games and should be able to play them on whatever server I want to, even if the developer gives up on it.

Nope you didn't buy WoW, you subscribed to it. Come on, you knew the terms. I'm sorry you can't play this game forever but it was always part of the deal. You never bought WoW, you paid your fee every month like a good cash cow and you got to play on the servers with your friends. I was playing Sunshine on my console which I 100% owned and will own forever. It's not the same things

Encouraging studios to allow private server to exist is not a bad thing. but these guys keep making games because they are making money from them.

 

[30+GameOvers]

Maldy's sock spergigng out entire paragraphs when the petition already got enough votes is doing wonders for my theory here. Who else but him would be so wound up about this? Feed your ferrets and clean their shit, Jason. The internet arguments can wait.
I wonder how Ross is feeling about this. Looking forward to the official victory video from him.

 

[The Entity]

FUCK YEAH I can't wait for unelected literal communists and pedophiles to further restrict the market killing even more of what little is left of the european tech market because it will make some literal nobody faggot online mad.

Atleast it will be funny watching the EU as it keeps sliding more into irrelevancy on every single field on the global stage (only if I wasn't living in this fucking hellhole).

 

[Ted's Cabin]

Right, this is a terrible metaphor. If a burger restaurant closes - another person is allowed to open up a burger restaurant

The distinction is still that you cannot use that specific restaurant's kitchen and make McDonald's hamburgers. You can make your own burgers and make them taste good.

Quite literally you are allowed to make McDonald's hamburgers. They aren't some special magical hamburgers forged by Ronald McDonald himself - you can use the same grills, the same meat, the same spices. You can rent or buy an old McDonalds location and aren't required to repaint the roof or anything. The only thing you cannot do is call it "McDonalds".

You can imitate a McDonald’s burger in your own kitchen, just like people can reverse-engineer a private server. But you want McDonald’s to hand you the sauce recipe, the kitchen blueprints, a supply chain and the facility - for free

Imagine being so fat you see games and think of food. Buying a game isn't like buying a burger and nothing is analogous to McDonalds you retards.

 

[Internet-Based Lobotomy]

FUCK YEAH I can't wait for unelected literal communists and pedophiles to further restrict the market killing what little is left of the European tech market

You say this but the EU has better rights for consoomers than America which is why SKG gave up on America in the first place. EU has a lot of sales pull and as we've seen with literally everything else in gaming they'll prioritize total sales rather than lose out on the entire EU as a market. If they just have to make their game and licensing agreements work perpetually then risk is worth far less than the reward.