Comment

Comment on Does anyone else find it suspicious that there wasn't any criticism on here about Stop Killing Games until after it hit 1.4M signatures?

<- View Parent

mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

For example, indie games like Objects in Space. It was Early Access and ran into technical issues which led to funding issues as they could only work so long on it. Its broken essentially. But it doesn’t matter if the project was beyond their scope of skill or they ran out of money, they would be forced to pay to fix it.

First off, that studio will not be forced to go back and fix their game. Western democratic governments, including the EU, works on the basis that ex post facto laws are invalid. The game is already dead and abandoned from your telling, so there would be no expectation to revive it.

The true solution for studios making new games in the future is to implement exit strategies for multiplayer implementation early on in development. And for single player games, much of that exit strategy is to not require login servers after the game is abandoned.

And to address your specific example, there is one option that is extremely cheap and easy to implement that will certainly pass requirements: release the sorce code. If a EA game is truly so bungled that it’s better off abandoned, studios and publishers will always have the option to fully abandon it.

The moment that petition started to get close to 1M, you know publishers started turning gears to block future legislation.

You’re forgetting this is the EU, it’s significantly less susceptible to industry lobbying than the US. If it wasn’t the GDPR wouldn’t exist and Apple would still be using their proprietary chargers on all new iPhones.

The points needed to be concise for the purpose of the fact finding committee.

Have you not read the petition? I doubt it could be anymore concise in its language while still being possible to pass. You can’t specify exact implementations for games post-abandonment because any single solution will not work for every game.

There really is no solid argument against what I’ve said.

That is a claim befitting an egotistical fool. But at least now you can’t complain that nobody has addressed your concerns, as you claimed in your first comment.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Mordikan@kbin.earth ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
Have you not read the petition? I doubt it could be anymore concise in its language while still being possible to pass.

Require video games sold to remain in a working state when support ends. Require no connections to the publisher after support ends. Not interfere with any business practices while a game is still being supported.

That's it... 3 sentences is not concise. You want to base multi-national law off of 3 sentences. Maybe you should think that through a bit more. If the time can't be spent to actualy write out constructive goals or at least milestones (which is supposed to help dictate multi-national law) then maybe it should wait shouldn't it until you can.

You're forgetting this is the EU, it's significantly less susceptible to industry lobbying than the US

The VGE (the lobbying group you're talking about) helped to write the consumer protection, digital content licensing, and age ratings for the EU.
They already helped create your laws so that's not really true is it.

There really is no solid argument against what I've said.
Sorry, it still stands.
source
- mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
  www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/concise
  
  Concise:
  
  marked by brevity of expression or statement : free from all elaboration and superfluous detail
  
  Aka, “short”.
  
  The petition absolutely is ‘concise’. You just have no idea what that word means.
  
  Not only that, a long petition containing lots of details has its own drawbacks. For one, fewer people will read it and/or understand it, which will make it easier for detractors to confuse the general public with misinformation.
  
  source
  - Mordikan@kbin.earth ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
    Concise is synonymous with "to the point". In other words, you don't have to have lots of words, but they do have to be on target which your 3 sentences are not. So, no, it was correct word use on my part.
    The fact that you can't argue the VGE's involvement or anything other than a word's definition really doesn't make you look like you have a strong case here lol.
    Again, it seems like you have strong feelings, but that doesn't win court cases. Sorry, not sorry.
    
    source
    mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
    
    The fact that you can’t argue the VGE’s involvement or anything other than a word’s definition really doesn’t make you look like you have a strong case here lol.
    
    So you’re just ignoring all the other points I made earlier? On top of refusing to acknowledge that you don’t know what words you’re using?
    
    Concise is synonymous with “to the point”.
    
    No. The word you are looking for is “succinct”. You’re doubling down harder than PirateGames at this point, and with you including some egotistical snark at the end of every comment and claiming that you can’t possibly be wrong just further demonstrates that you’re a walking example of Dunning-Krüger syndrome with entitlement issues.
    
    Get over yourself. Instead of petulantly whining about a petition on the internet, go and do something actually productive with your life.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments