Yes, as a society we can collectively decide what companies should and shouldn't do. It's called living in a society with rules and regulations.
> Every single games company faced with this issue is now going to change the terms of service to note that the $70 "includes free two year subscription, paid up front!", and if the lawyers get pissy about that they'll sell two versions: one that is $0, but doesnt work until you sign up for the $70 per month subscription.
So if you make it illegal for companies to lie and say they are selling you a game, only to then take it away, they will instead... be honest and tell you how long the game will be supported? Great!
It won’t be a lie it will be a contract. It will be the opposite of a lie. You will then have to decide if you want to spend $70 on a game that you an are only guaranteed to get a year out of. Maybe you won’t. But at least we’ll be spared your entitled tantrums.
All of these freedoms would only kick in after the developer shuts down official servers, after which the product is discontinued and not generating income anyway.
It wouldn't affect game developers at all, the only change would be that they have to upload the server file's code when they decide to stop supporting the game, so that players can continue it themselves.
That's not clear from the article. Even if that's the case, it still gives away the studio's IP the moment they discontinue the game. Counter strike wouldn't exist if these "freedoms" were in effect when half-life ended support.
Games in general are a very difficult thing to preserve because of how they are often "on-going" things rather than definitive objects like books or films. Minecraft has gone through 27 major version updates, most of which having had in the range of 3-10 sub-versions. So that's potentially ~100 versions, just for Java edition. Should all of those be archived? Or just the final version, when it one day arrives? At this point, the Minecraft from 2014 and from 2026 are completely different games. And at least for Minecraft, there's mostly just stuff added. What about games in which major features regularly get removed, like Fortnite? There, the "last" version will lack many of the games most famous attributes.
Maybe we should just accept that big online games are more like cultural happenings than media objects. In the future, you simply might not be able to play Fortnite, in the same way you can never visit Woodstock again. It's just something you had to be at.
> So that's potentially ~100 versions, just for Java edition. Should all of those be archived?
Minecraft is a great example here, because the answer it brings to the table is yes. You can play any version of Minecraft (barring some really early versions that are lost to time) natively in the launcher. Yes, even the stupid sub-versions. If Minecraft can do it just fine, I see little reason other games can't (barring licencing issues, ugh).
> What about games in which major features regularly get removed, like Fortnite?
Give the option to revert back. Provide the relevant files so someone can do it by themselves. Be a decent human being.
> Maybe we should just accept that big online games are more like cultural happenings than media objects.
Fuck off. You had to be there for WoW Classic too. Doesn't mean we can't still have it. There are WoW Classic server up right now, with people playing it. Not that that has much to do with Blizzard (they caved only after illicit Classic servers became stupid popular, and it's not like setting up those servers was an easy feat).
Yes, because children deserve to simultaneously not be under constant surveillance by their parents but still be protected from bad actors. Hence we should collectively, as a society, protect them.
Not all children have active parents. I do not believe those children deserve to be taken advantage of or hurt simply because they happen to have bad parents.
The "laziness" argument doesnt work if the people being lazy (parents) are not the people being hurt (children)
Also, if the government arrests you for making a post, the issue is them arresting you, not your post not being anonymous.
Like, criticizing the government shouldnt just be possible because you can hide behind a fake name. It should be legal with your face name and address attached to it as well
Because many children will have parents that arent responsible and that doesnt mean they deserve to be taken advantage of by a billion dollar corporation.
This is famously why ID checks at the liquor store led to the government eventually requiring a mandatory ID check anytime you walk the dog or go to the beach... except none of that happened.
> Every single games company faced with this issue is now going to change the terms of service to note that the $70 "includes free two year subscription, paid up front!", and if the lawyers get pissy about that they'll sell two versions: one that is $0, but doesnt work until you sign up for the $70 per month subscription.
So if you make it illegal for companies to lie and say they are selling you a game, only to then take it away, they will instead... be honest and tell you how long the game will be supported? Great!
reply