EU petition to stop video games from being killed off

[Doc Spectre]

I was just watching an Asmongold video on YouTube and apparently there is a new petition for the EU the make a law to protect consumers from loosing access to video games they have paid for. I can’t sign the petition as I’m not a citizen of an EU country but I thought I should mention it here given the struggle CoH community went through to save Paragon City.

 

They need to get over a million people to sign the petition.

[Digirium]

https://www.stopkillinggames.com/

[Doc Spectre]

Thanks for the link 😉

[Darmian]

And signed.

[Techwright]

In theory, this sounds marvelous. I'd love to play my favorite games until the day I drop.  But I see a problem in continued finances:  it costs money to keep game servers running, and there may be other expenses I'm not aware of.  Here, we have a wonderful volunteer community that steps forward to pay the bill each month, but is that a hard guarantee for every game?  What if the community refuses to contribute continually or under contributes due to too few players?  Who foots the bill then?  A networked game is not ownership is it, but rather licensing.  One pays for the license for an account within the game, then possibly pays a subset amount for monthly access.  Cash shop items would likewise be considered licenses of a sort.  Licenses can be cancelled, ownership should not be.  A proper EULA should make it clear, in fact "license" is the "L" in EULA.

 

I've still got my original Atari 2600 with 40 games.  My brother gave me one of those modern nostalgia ones with a bunch more built in.  And though I've not played them in years, I still maintain a stash of CD-ROM games from WinXP days. Were I to do a virtualization, I could play them as long as such technology allowed, and not cost anyone another coin.  It is one of the reasons I personally have always felt this type of gaming superior: the full game in the player's hand. Ownership.   I realize an MMO is a very different critter, but that's kind of the point, isn't it?  Knowing there's a cost to maintain connectivity, we reluctantly recognize at some point the game may no longer be sustainable, and we go the license route.  It's a big reason why I will never get into the paid function of EVE Online or any game like it with expensive items:  they're not ownership material.

 

There's another problem as well:  which version of the game is kept in perpetuity?  If the game designer releases an update or series of updates that degrades the game, or at least the players think so, will that inferior version be the one that must be maintained?  Would more than one version need to be maintained to satisfy the players' appetites?  Back in 2011 to 2014 I was more focused on the extended beta (we'd now call it "early access") of the game Firefall.  When I first signed up, it was a riot of fun, and looked to be getting ever better with each patch.  Then, due to money constraints due to mismanagement, the game and company were sold to The9, who over the rest of the game's existence, released a series of patches that severely broke the game forcing even the most diehard players to quit.  I've encountered others like me, and we've also spoken of the game's best days fondly and wished it had never been so frightfully abused.  As much as we'd want the game to go into eternal mode, none of us want the wreck that was the last year of its life.  We'd only want the 2012-2013 version, and we might quibble on which update in those years was the best.    So where would that leave the game and players if all that happened in the near future where this desired law was passed?

 

Would this create precedent in other areas and industries as well?  If I preferred MS Office 2010 over anything current, for example, would there be precedent to force Microsoft to offer and maintain it for the next 100 years? (I assume this generation would be all dead by then.  Except perhaps Snarky, who'd be mostly dead.)

[ZacKing]

I don't think companies should be required to continue paying to maintain games in perpetuity.  If it's a MMORPG, you're paying for access and as far as I know, there's no guarantee you'll have access forever. 

 

With that said, if the game companies are willing to let the community take over the costs for maintenance and running a server like they have here, I'm all for it. 

[Oubliette_Red]

On 8/4/2024 at 9:56 AM, ZacKing said:

I don't think companies should be required to continue paying to maintain games in perpetuity.  If it's a MMORPG, you're paying for access and as far as I know, there's no guarantee you'll have access forever. 

 

With that said, if the game companies are willing to let the community take over the costs for maintenance and running a server like they have here, I'm all for it. 

 

I agree with the MMO thing, but there have been instances where gamers have lost access to their single-player games especially when they were digitally purchased or were on cloud servers such as what happened with Stadia, there's also been shady company tactics with companies putting out single-player games that still require you to be online. I recall being incredibly annoyed when I bought a physical copy of Skyrim and it required me to create an account on Steam to play it.

[ZacKing]

1 hour ago, Oubliette_Red said:

I agree with the MMO thing, but there have been instances where gamers have lost access to their single-player games especially when they were digitally purchased or were on cloud servers such as what happened with Stadia, there's also been shady company tactics with companies putting out single-player games that still require you to be online. I recall being incredibly annoyed when I bought a physical copy of Skyrim and it required me to create an account on Steam to play it.

 

I don't really see a difference.  If the game you've purchased requires an internet connection to play, regardless of whether single or multi-player, that means it needs to connect to a server the company is providing, and you're paying for access to a service.  Unless those games specifically stated in their user agreements that they'd be around forever, then the companies can sunset them whenever they want.  I agree with your sentiment though and can empathize, which I think we all can given the game we're currently playing here. 

[Doc Spectre]

I could be wrong but the main impression I got was to stop publishers deliberately destroying a game after they think there is not enough profit to be made from it.
With the intention that player communities can sustain a game off their own efforts.

[ZacKing]

14 hours ago, Doc Spectre said:

I could be wrong but the main impression I got was to stop publishers deliberately destroying a game after they think there is not enough profit to be made from it.
With the intention that player communities can sustain a game off their own efforts.

 

If a company decides they aren't making enough money from a title, it's perfectly reasonable to shut it down.  Like I said earlier, if those companies want to release their code to the public so someone else can manage it and pay for it, by all means go for it.  I don't think companies should be required to operate at a loss keeping titles active that are losing money.

[ThaOGDreamWeaver]

I understand that MMOs and competitive FPS have to have regular income of some kind for server upkeep, whether that's subscriptions or micropayments, or in COH's case, donations. (Which I've happily done for this game, but I'm usually not fast enough.)

 

[WARNING! INCOMING RANT! WARNING! INCOMING RANT!]

 

What I object to is buying a thing, then being forced to subscribe to it to keep it working, giving the company that made it a revenue stream - with no guarantee of additional functionality.

 

I no longer use Ad**e products for work for this reason - there are plenty of third party apps that are pretty close to being as good, or good enough for what I need, that don't self-destruct if I don't want to fork over my credit card. And also, incidentally, aren't crash-prone bloatware. (eg: Pixelmator Pro for Mac if you need a pretty damn decent paint programme.)

 

However, the whole micropayment addiction is starting to creep into other areas of life, and I do not like it.

 

For example, BMW now wants you to pay for features that came with the car...

https://www.theverge.com/2022/7/12/23204950/bmw-subscriptions-microtransactions-heated-seats-feature

 

...whereas John Deere had to be stopped from remote-bricking tractors if someone tries to fix them themselves rather than paying for "authentic" parts and service plus unlock codes.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64206913

 

And most recently, those blasted newspaper site blockers have gone from whining about using ABP to block cookies to requiring a subscription for "enhanced" privacy. 

 

PS: genuine request... if anyone knows of a decently priced colour printer that doesn't throw a screaming hissyfit if you use non-"authentic" cartridges / refills or demand subscriptions, drop me a DM.

Edited August 6 by ThaOGDreamWeaver

[ZacKing]

1 hour ago, ThaOGDreamWeaver said:

What I object to is buying a thing, then being forced to subscribe to it to keep it working, giving the company that made it a revenue stream - with no guarantee of additional functionality.

 

I don't disagree with you, but I also understand that the software landscape has changed.  It depends on the software too.  Back in the day when you bought a CD, you had the physical product and didn't get any sort of security updates, bug fixes and such.  Now, you're not really buying a physical product anymore and as I understand it and from what I've seen, you're getting bug and security fixes at least.  Whether or not you're getting full upgrades included in your subscription fee is dependent on the publisher.

 

1 hour ago, ThaOGDreamWeaver said:

For example, BMW now wants you to pay for features that came with the car...

https://www.theverge.com/2022/7/12/23204950/bmw-subscriptions-microtransactions-heated-seats-feature

 

...whereas John Deere had to be stopped from remote-bricking tractors if someone tries to fix them themselves rather than paying for "authentic" parts and service plus unlock codes.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64206913

 

And most recently, those blasted newspaper site blockers have gone from whining about using ABP to block cookies to requiring a subscription for "enhanced" privacy. 

 

I agree this is annoying.  Cisco is infamous for this too in the ISP market.  If they find you have anything in your network that isn't "genuine Cisco" they won't honor their Smartnet guarantee.  They've been strong-arming the industry for years.  Apple does this too.

 

1 hour ago, ThaOGDreamWeaver said:

PS: genuine request... if anyone knows of a decently priced colour printer that doesn't throw a screaming hissyfit if you use non-"authentic" cartridges / refills or demand subscriptions, drop me a DM.

 

From my experience, most will work with non-authentic cartridges just fine.  Remember, these printer companies don't make their money on printers themselves.  The money comes from cartridge sales.  Same thing with Keurig and K-cups.

[ThaOGDreamWeaver]

4 minutes ago, ZacKing said:

Apple does this too.

On that note... I'm not sure if this is just me or if something I'm doing wrong. I used to do the Apple thing of extracting tracks from my CDs using iTunes, and loading them onto my iPhone Music. However, one day the ripped tracks started erasing themselves without warning. Which is annoying, since some of them were from friends, and now I can't find them anywhere else.

 

Is there a way of stopping it doing that in Music or is that Apple DRM in overdrive?

[GM_GooglyMoogly]

Let's leave politics out of the forums, please.   We get enough on the TV, radio, news, and mail.  Thanks!

[Herotu]

9 hours ago, GM_GooglyMoogly said:

Let's leave politics out of the forums, please.   We get enough on the TV, radio, news, and mail.  Thanks!

Sorry to say it, but the whole thread is politics. Anything reality-based is.