Stop Killing Games (EU edition) - Moldman vs. Publishers

LovisXVI said:
People should be able to use the product they paid for. This is no different than the right to repair.
Click to expand...
WaveCruising said:
There's no point to a free market if you can't own the things you buy. You might as well have communism.
Click to expand...
Maeis said:
you will own nothing and you will be happy is an awful phrase that deserves nothing but mockery.
Click to expand...
I'm not gonna reiterate the argument for another 20 posts but if you genuinely think that you will "own" software after this law passes then you are lying to yourself. Just like you can't legally send a copy of a game you bought to your friend, you also aren't entitled that someone else's computer in the cloud must be permanently in your servitude for a million, million years without making any recurring payments. This is entirely normal in the world of software, and every other form of artificial scarcity will continue to exist after this bill is passed. You will continue to not own your software just like before. I'll just leave it at that since I've already been banned from the more active thread for not participating in the echo chamber.
 
  • Dumb
  • Autistic
Reactions: Kaiba Cuqk63, Maniacal Foreigner, Lone Wandering Courier and 5 others
lightbringga said:
It should go without saying that supporting an unregulated free market isn't in the service of communism.
Click to expand...
But supporting government upholding copyright and IP laws is le free market.
lightbringga said:
I'm not gonna reiterate the argument for another 20 posts but if you genuinely think that you will "own" software after this law passes then you are lying to yourself. Just like you can't legally send a copy of a game you bought to your friend, you also aren't entitled that someone else's computer in the cloud must be permanently in your servitude for a million, million years without making any recurring payments. This is entirely normal in the world of software, and every other form of artificial scarcity will continue to exist after this bill is passed. You will continue to not own your software just like before. I'll just leave it at that since I've already been banned from the more active thread for not participating in the echo chamber.
Click to expand...
Can you, for fuck sake, learn to read you absolute mongrel. It was pointed to you again and again, no one expects you to keep servers up and running. What is expected that games that are sold as product to not be bound by whims of publishers so they can pull the plug whenever they want.
MMOs as service are still viable. However if you sell the game, you ought to either make it offline single player if that's game like the Crew or Dark Souls, or if it is MMO, release server executable.
Also it won't affect current games, because laws don't work backwards, so any new game developed will be designed around that.
And that's non issue for indies, as most indies give you server executable already. Which was the norm in industry anyway before always online.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Kane Lives, Kamen Rider Faiz, Maniacal Foreigner and 5 others
lightbringga said:
I'm not gonna reiterate the argument for another 20 posts but if you genuinely think that you will "own" software after this law passes then you are lying to yourself. Just like you can't legally send a copy of a game you bought to your friend, you also aren't entitled that someone else's computer in the cloud must be permanently in your servitude for a million, million years without making any recurring payments. This is entirely normal in the world of software, and every other form of artificial scarcity will continue to exist after this bill is passed. You will continue to not own your software just like before. I'll just leave it at that since I've already been banned from the more active thread for not participating in the echo chamber.
Click to expand...
Just like Thor you do not understand that the legislation does not require people to host their game forever, only to hand over the ability for others to host it themselves. Fuck, can anyone opposing this read?
 
  • Agree
  • Optimistic
Reactions: StacticShock, Kane Lives, Kamen Rider Faiz and 5 others
lightbringga said:
I'm not gonna reiterate the argument for another 20 posts but if you genuinely think that you will "own" software after this law passes then you are lying to yourself. Just like you can't legally send a copy of a game you bought to your friend, you also aren't entitled that someone else's computer in the cloud must be permanently in your servitude for a million, million years without making any recurring payments. This is entirely normal in the world of software, and every other form of artificial scarcity will continue to exist after this bill is passed. You will continue to not own your software just like before. I'll just leave it at that since I've already been banned from the more active thread for not participating in the echo chamber.
Click to expand...
You fundamentally misunderstand the issue. SKG is not about "owning" a product. SKG is not about online servers staying on in perpetuity.

It's very simple; a guarantee from the publisher that the product will be in a playable state after end of life support.
There are many ways to do this. One example is handing the keys over to the community so they can run their own community servers. Another example is designing the game so remote DRM is not required for non-online gameplay.

Ignoring your opinion on the quality of the game, do you think it's acceptable that The Crew is completely unplayable today?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Maniacal Foreigner, GhastlyGhost, Verpa Teutonica Ingens and 2 others
Maeis said:
Just like Thor you do not understand that the legislation does not require people to host their game forever, only to hand over the ability for others to host it themselves. Fuck, can anyone opposing this read?
Click to expand...
1751050231839.webp

"N-not source code though that doesn't count!"
 
  • Dumb
  • Autistic
  • Mad at the Internet
Reactions: Minion Facebook Memes, Squawking Macaw, Kane Lives and 10 others
The former construction man, with a degree in marketing and better video essays than Jim Turdling's, is busy ripping Jason a new malegina.
Offtopic, but him praising Baldur's Gate 3 in every third or so video, including the DEI one, makes me feel like he's not really seeing the full picture with that game - or the bear fucking piece.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: fartsnstuf
Maeis said:
I'll admit I have no idea what this own is supposed to be.
Click to expand...
Okay I'll spell it out for you. Do you:
A.) Believe game creators should be able to own their backends
B.) Believe server owners should be able to own their server hardware

If you believe both of these things, I'd like you to attempt to reconcile these beliefs with the SKG regulation. Do you believe:
1.) Game creators should be forced to hand over their backends
2.) Servers should be forced to run game backends for a million, million years without any recurring payments

If you choose a third option I'd like you to spell out in no uncertain terms what it is and how it doesn't contradict the first two beliefs (which were inferred from your "you will own nothing" post)
 
  • Dumb
  • Autistic
  • Mad at the Internet
Reactions: Kaiba Cuqk63, Minion Facebook Memes, Croaking Spider and 7 others
lightbringga said:
Okay I'll spell it out for you. Do you:
A.) Believe game creators should be able to own their backends
B.) Believe server owners should be able to own their server hardware

If you believe both of these things, I'd like you to attempt to reconcile these beliefs with the SKG regulation. Do you believe:
1.) Game creators should be forced to hand over their backends
2.) Servers should be forced to run game backends for a million, million years without any recurring payments

If you choose a third option I'd like you to spell out in no uncertain terms what it is and how it doesn't contradict the first two beliefs (which were inferred from your "you will own nothing" post)
Click to expand...
The Gordian knot cut here is that we're paying you for the privilege. You buy something, you own it. If you want to kill you game, you need to tell consumers upfront how long their service (which you are selling as a good, a product) will last.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: There Is Light At The End, Bitchslapper, Maniacal Foreigner and 5 others
lightbringga said:
A.) Believe game creators should be able to own their backends
B.) Believe server owners should be able to own their server hardware
Click to expand...
The one who pays should own it.
The gamers payed for it.
Devs should be publicly flogged for being the most lazy faggots there are.
lightbringga said:
1.) Game creators should be forced to hand over their backends
2.) Servers should be forced to run game backends for a million, million years without any recurring
Click to expand...
You are a retard.
First off, pretending that the backends of games are some kind of ultra-secret tech, and that giving those secrets to gamers would somehow harm the developers, is preposterous.

If they’re no longer selling the game, there’s no reason not to hand it over. And if they don’t want to hand it over, then they should create a version of the game that doesn’t require their "super secret" backend.

If developers are such sub-humans that they use platforms or tools which force them to build a kill switch into their games, then we’re back to talking about publicly flogging them.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: There Is Light At The End, Kane Lives, Bitchslapper and 5 others
lightbringga said:
Okay I'll spell it out for you. Do you:
A.) Believe game creators should be able to own their backends
B.) Believe server owners should be able to own their server hardware

If you believe both of these things, I'd like you to attempt to reconcile these beliefs with the SKG regulation. Do you believe:
1.) Game creators should be forced to hand over their backends
2.) Servers should be forced to run game backends for a million, million years without any recurring payments

If you choose a third option I'd like you to spell out in no uncertain terms what it is and how it doesn't contradict the first two beliefs (which were inferred from your "you will own nothing" post)
Click to expand...
Game creators don't get to jealously guard their backend once they decide it's no longer worth it to keep the lights on.

Giving the consumer the ability to host their own server was industry standard in the past when server costs was expensive

Treating server client as a industry secret that needs to be kept under lock and key for perpetuity is retarded and game dev brained
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Kamen Rider Faiz, Bitchslapper, Verpa Teutonica Ingens and 4 others
lightbringga said:
Okay I'll spell it out for you. Do you:
A.) Believe game creators should be able to own their backends
B.) Believe server owners should be able to own their server hardware

If you believe both of these things, I'd like you to attempt to reconcile these beliefs with the SKG regulation. Do you believe:
1.) Game creators should be forced to hand over their backends
2.) Servers should be forced to run game backends for a million, million years without any recurring payments

If you choose a third option I'd like you to spell out in no uncertain terms what it is and how it doesn't contradict the first two beliefs (which were inferred from your "you will own nothing" post)
Click to expand...
You retarded nigger, they shouldn't be allowed to kill my frontend, that I fucking paid for, when they decide to discontinue the backend.
4niggers need to neck.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Kaiba Cuqk63, StacticShock, Verpa Teutonica Ingens and 3 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back