- cross-posted to:
- pcmasterrace@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- pcmasterrace@lemmy.world
Cross posted from https://feddit.org/post/31333476
Existing EU consumer law already provides for important safeguards protecting the economic interests of consumers. Video game providers must inform consumers about the duration and the conditions for terminating the contract before the consumers signs up for the video game. […]
However, to address players’ concerns, the Commission has committed to taking several steps.
First, it will initiate an exchange with the video game industry and consumer representatives with the aim to draw up an industry code of conduct on managing video games’ ‘end of life’.
Second, the Commission will work with consumer organisations and authorities to raise awareness about the applicable rights that protect consumers, including on safeguards protecting the economic interests of consumers
Edit: edited title for more clarity.
I mean… as much as we hate this, I always had this thought at the back of my mind. Games commonly become abandoned not because of greed, but because of financial reasons. Same financial reasons would make it impossible for many companies to hire programmers to modify the game for playing single-player. Sometimes outright impossible due to game design (can’t really make NPCs smart enough to act like players in MMO, which are needed for raids, etc.).
I don’t see how can this realistically become a legal obligation, but devs should still be encouraged to make their games in a way they can keep functioning without servers
In the worst case, it would be free to open source the server code. Companies can just do that, and the community can take it from there. I think SKG even allows releasing just a binary in their proposition.
Either way, keeping NPCs entertaining or realistic enpugh to substitute other players is also something that SKG says it’s not asking for. Even if there aren’t other players, being able to enter the world should be enough to consider the game playable.
A server browser or other such support can be built into the game from day one, they don’t have to change anything towards the end.
Yeah, that’s literally what the last sentence meant, but as of now, this movement is not about how games should be made, it’s about how they should be ended. Related, but kinda different worlds in law
You argue that you can’t decide how a game is ended becauSe the studio might go under.
I argue such cases can be omitted by taking care of it as the game is being made.
I argue that Stop Killing Games is essentially fighting the wrong law. Instead of trying to get the phone makers from adapting usb-c during manufacturing - they’re trying to get the manufacturers to replace the old charging port to usb-c after end of life. That is also why the judges essentially said this is unfeasible.
They quite literally do not.
They want – preferably all current, but possibly just new/upcoming – games to have an end of life plan from the moment they are released.
They want that, when a server is switched off, the game doesn’t become bricked. That is something that can be taken into account before a game is released.
Or, per your metaphor: it’d be nice if all currently supported phones could have USB-C added, but only new phones shipping with USB-C is also acceptable.
It is insane to require smart NPC, which is why this was never asked for devs. Just let people self host servers.
The idea would be more like a reserve wheel in a car; not to call the manufacturer to deliver you a reserve wheel only when you get into an accident.
And the second misunderstanding that makes it seem difficult is that you have to make every game run without a server. If the community can run a server, that’s all that’s needed.
there are many other things that were considered unrealistical legal obligations. our current consumer protections as a whole most likely were opposed by businesses at first, expect at that time governments were less puppet theaters for corporations.
and what was being asked was not unreasonable at all. No one asked for complicated solutions like simulating entire mmo community or whatever, just that the damn corporations would let community handle it once they dont want to upkeep the servers anymore or that they wouldnt be allowed to literally steal the game from you.
The reason why businesses oppose stop killing games is because people would buy less if they could keep playing the old ones (and not even everyone, just portion of them.)
If we cant get even a little thing like this, what hope do we have with big things?
They are down voting you because you are the one being reasonable. SKG unleashes the rabid horde of people that don’t understand math or budgeting. Stop Killing Games is actually “Kill All Indie Dev Studios” because only AAA can afford to stay in compliance. Do you people want to only have games from EA or Ubisoft? It sure does seem that people want to play Call of Duty games, because that is going to be the only thing left.
Writing a “best by” date on the store page is too taxing for studios who don’t want to provide the protocol documentation to create a dedicated server?
What does that even mean? Are you implying that you can predict sales numbers?
I mean that’s literally what’s asked for: Follow European sales laws by considering the game as a rental (so, monthly subscription), or provide a legally mandated end date before buying (legally considering the product as a perishable in short), or provide the means for the customer to continue to use their product (with either tools or documentation, you don’t have to keep running the servers forever).
The fact big players in the industry try to dismiss to whole thing as an overreaction by out of touch kids when they already do the work that would make them compliant as a part of game dev is more an insult than anything else.
do enlighten us with a hypotetical scenario
You get x amount of money to make a game. When you release, you used all of that x amount of money to make the game. You don’t sell well and did not recoup the cost of making the game. Now you have negative dollars to make any changes in the game. The end.
Quite a deep and complex comment, thank you for taking the time to write it out.
You did omit the part where it is relevant, unfortunately
What are your ideas on determining an expiry date? A studio has no idea if they are going to be supporting a game for 5 weeks or 5 years. There is no fair number. When you are out of money you are out of money. If you let the studios decide, they will pick 1 day. If you set it at 1 year, only the unicorns and AAA can afford to stay in business. It would probably be more profitable and better for business to forgo the EU release altogether. No exaggeration. It will even save a bunch of money on localization. The studios will weaponized capitalism.