Jason Thor Hall / PirateSoftware / Maldavius Figtree / DarkSphere Creations / Maldavius / Thorwich / Witness X / @PotatoSec - Incompetent Furry Programmer, Blizzard Nepo Baby, Lies about almost every thing in his life, Industry Shill, Carried by his father, Hate boner against Ross Scott of Accursed Farms, False Flagger

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.

Which will happen first?

  • Jason Hall finishes developing his game

    Votes: 33 0.8%
  • YandereDev finishes developing his game

    Votes: 414 9.7%
  • Grummz finishes developing his game

    Votes: 117 2.7%
  • Chris Roberts finishes developing his game

    Votes: 143 3.3%
  • Cold fusion

    Votes: 1,640 38.3%
  • The inevitable heat death of the universe

    Votes: 1,934 45.2%

  • Total voters
    4,281
Unlikely. They will get at least 3 years of grace. Not to mention that it's very much possible that all games currently released will be exempt.
That is true but it wouldnt surprise me that they kill these games off out of spite. I don't know why these corporations have such a weird fetish with people not being allowed to actually own what you purchase.
 
That is true but it wouldnt surprise me that they kill these games off out of spite. I don't know why these corporations have such a weird fetish with people not being allowed to actually own what you purchase.
They want people to play their new, more monetized, games, rather than the old ones.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Core Theorist
That is true but it wouldnt surprise me that they kill these games off out of spite. I don't know why these corporations have such a weird fetish with people not being allowed to actually own what you purchase.
Profits, nothing else matters. Corpos don't do anything out of spite.
It very much is intended that it doesn't apply retroactively. Not even to games that shut down after the grace period but were developed/before SKG
Yeah, I meant if they were to continue updating/selling micro-transactions/expansion them after grace period ends. It might be that EU starts to require EoL for those.
 
That is true but it wouldnt surprise me that they kill these games off out of spite. I don't know why these corporations have such a weird fetish with people not being allowed to actually own what you purchase.
I doubt they'd do it out of spite. Game publishers, especially large publishers like Ubi, EA, ABK, are on really thin ice with their public perception.
For ubi, it's so bad they're bankrupt in all but name.

If they do anything as retaliation, it'll be market tested, checked by many economic psychologists, and introduced as slowly as possible.

A petition like SKG blowing the fuck up overnight just because big names talked about it can only mean one thing: customers were already angry about it, and all it took for them to act was to know they could.

At best, I'd expect a noticeable rise of either singleplayer, single+multiplayer, or subscription only games from big publishers.
 
Sloptuber Luke Stephens brings up an excellent point that over the next few months, publishers may try to kill off their dead live service games in an effort to get ahead of any EU conditions that would require them to make an offline mode for any games that currently have an online only requirement.
Stop killing games would not impact any games that were already out.
Sunsetting anthem was probably in plans for much longer now seeing how the game was on life support already.
 

Sloptuber Luke Stephens brings up an excellent point that over the next few months, publishers may try to kill off their dead live service games in an effort to get ahead of any EU conditions that would require them to make an offline mode for any games that currently have an online only requirement.

Anthem is going offline in January. And EA has said there is currently no plans for an offline mode. So effectively your purchase is being taken away. Despite the game being shit this is what the movement is fighting against.

There are many failed live service games that require an online connection. I think Luke brought up Redfall. Evolve is another one but it came out years ago. Publishers aren't going to be willing to put teams on older games that have failed to give them viable offline options. So they figure it would be better to kill them off entirely before the EU gets the ball rolling.
I'd assume there'll be some form of grandfathering built into SKG if it manages to pass - Games published before X Arbitrary Date not needing to comply - but frankly I'm more surprised the Anthem servers were still up. When's the last time anyone heard anything about that game?
 
I have some bad news for you.
... I am gonna 41% myself, aren't I?
All modern consoles having killswitches inside of them to prevent tampering doesn't seem profitable to me. I know people are dumb but you should be able to do whatever you want with a console you own as long as it isn't illegal.
Yep, you ought to. Sadly the law hasn't caught up yet, hence why SKG had to exist.
 
I'd assume there'll be some form of grandfathering built into SKG if it manages to pass - Games published before X Arbitrary Date not needing to comply - but frankly I'm more surprised the Anthem servers were still up. When's the last time anyone heard anything about that game?
Honestly I thought it was already dead, I thought I remembered seeing a server shut down announcement after a year but I guess that's just my brain filling in the blanks of what I expected for a game that did that badly.

As for grandfathering, I'm extremely doubtful. Maybe some companies will try to enact good PR by stating how "Yes consumer, we are not like OTHER game companies, we care about preserving your gaming experience long past after our support ends" but it would definitely be a minority of companies whereas everyone else will try and sunset titles and try to find other methods to retain a chokehold on consumers wherever possible.
 
Let me make sure I understand this. His 10x dev gigabrained "undefeatable" anti-piracy system is a single check for a global variable that tells the guy running pirated software to issue a bug report on twitter to him so that he can "fix it" by patching the game to ban their steam account from playing the game? Why did he expect this to work (to be fair it did have a good few names in it)?
And he's also expecting people with half a brain to not be tipped off by the pirate guy going "arrrrr".

He really looks and acts like a highschooler.
 
As for grandfathering, I'm extremely doubtful. Maybe some companies will try to enact good PR by stating how "Yes consumer, we are not like OTHER game companies, we care about preserving your gaming experience long past after our support ends" but it would definitely be a minority of companies whereas everyone else will try and sunset titles and try to find other methods to retain a chokehold on consumers wherever possible.
It's pretty standard for major customer action on "fixed" products.

Something like GDPR applies "retroactively", as services affected by it are always collecting new data.
Something like USB-C only applies forward, as it requires major changes in supply chain and design that are just not possible to perform to previous products.

I would assume video games would be treated more like USB-C, where taking in the whole lifecycle of the game would be seen by eurocrats as needing some design work.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Rezza
All modern consoles having killswitches inside of them to prevent tampering doesn't seem profitable to me. I know people are dumb but you should be able to do whatever you want with a console you own as long as it isn't illegal.
There probably are corpos that think stronger anti-piracy = more money, and having a killswitch is definitely stronger than not having one. I think the main thing is that they just don't believe that you own the things they sell you and it makes them angry when you use them in ways they didn't intend, with a good example being the recent patch of Mario Kart World where Nintendo removed what I can only assume was an intentional feature of not including the shitty intermission race tracks online if you chose random course, because they were offended people were choosing it. The ironic part is that console hacking would dramatically decrease if they were barely locked down, since people would have no reason to hack, just like what happened with the iPhone where jailbreaking used to be super common because iPhones were lacking in functionality, but nobody jailbreaks anymore since there is almost no benefit, and if you really wanted the benefits of jailbreaking you would just get an Android phone.
 
Honestly I thought it was already dead, I thought I remembered seeing a server shut down announcement after a year but I guess that's just my brain filling in the blanks of what I expected for a game that did that badly.

As for grandfathering, I'm extremely doubtful. Maybe some companies will try to enact good PR by stating how "Yes consumer, we are not like OTHER game companies, we care about preserving your gaming experience long past after our support ends" but it would definitely be a minority of companies whereas everyone else will try and sunset titles and try to find other methods to retain a chokehold on consumers wherever possible.
We might be remembering them killing the roadmap and any updates for the game and thinking that was them shuttering it.

And yeah I'm doubtful on Grandfathering as well, but I figured it's one of the more likely things that'd get attached to SKG without causing a shitfit. Mass shuttering's of old/underperforming Live Service Games is the more likely outcome
 
Back