Video Games Europe, a trade association that represents a bunch of major game publishers, have issued a statement pushing back against Stop Killing Games.
  • Honse@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    35·
    13 hours ago

    If lobbyists are fighting it you know it’s scaring them! Fuck your overreach of control, I bought a game not a service.

  • Toes♀@ani.socialEnglish
    181·
    14 hours ago

    It’s a big problem from a money making perspective. We’re basically asking the game companies to compete with themselves.

    The patient gamer in me sees a future where blue archive is completely free 2 play with no paywalls. :D

    • brsrklf@jlai.luEnglish
      161·
      12 hours ago

      You mean like how the blockbuster movie industry is in a crisis because most people prefer watching VHS of movies from the 1980s rather than watching the latest Marvel movie?

      That doesn’t happen, that’s not how any cultural medium works. Enthusiasts keeping old stuff running are a minority. Also they are likely to consume a lot, give them a new take on what they like and they’ll gladly try it… If it’s good enough.

      Of course, that’s the real problem. Some companies dream of wiping out everything that came before so their newest enshittified predatory crap doesn’t suffer from the comparison.

        • brsrklf@jlai.luEnglish
          5·
          4 hours ago

          The availability of old stuff is not and has never been their problem. Not any more than for books or music or whatever. Lost media happens, but by accident and/or lack of interest, not by design.

          Beyond some video game companies I can’t think of any that would dare claim that old works should expire.

  • PunnyName@lemmy.worldEnglish
    48·
    8 hours ago

    1: You’ve never owned a video game in your life, unless you were the owner of the copyright, you possessed a licensed copy (including physical copies). That has to change before any other real concrete changes can occur.

    2: Online video games are a totally different beast over single player games. Besides direct competition with themselves, there has to be a sustained effort to maintain those servers, while also staying beholden to the copyright holders.

    • Look at Project 1999 EverQuest (a “classic” server for a 26+ year game). It almost never reaches 2000 concurrent players, and that requires permission from Daybreak to run as intended. The Hero’s Journey is a different EQ project that is in litigation with Daybreak right now. Project Quarm has been reticent about keeping its servers running during the THJ legal proceedings.

    As much as we might want to keep games alive for posterity, we have to figure out a process for online games, and that seems like it’s gonna be a massive uphill battle.

    • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
      1·
      33 minutes ago

      Do you own the software and firmware in your car?

      The navigation system might use Google Maps and requires an internet connection to function. The manufacturer may decide to no longer want to pay for Google’s license and therefore disables all software - including software running the ignition, engine management, the speedometer, the center console - on the car with a momentary notice. The car becomes undrivable as a result.

      Should this be legal? You didn’t own the software after all.

    • TroublesomeTalker@feddit.ukEnglish
      1·
      4 hours ago

      1. And yet almost every single one had a “Buy” button on the purchase page, not a “licence” and I sure as shit didn’t sign a damn thing. I act like I own them, and will continue to do so. Half the EULAs contains some illegal bullshit anyway and the “also is any of this invalidates local laws, just ignore that bit” clause is relatively a lot newer than a lot of classic games which I probably do own because of this. With the greatest respect, laws are - effectively - requests when the entire population willfully ignores them.

      2. Absolutely true. And this is where I have difficulty with this initiative. I am a heavy collector and patient gamer, I get to stuff years after release. As such I have always avoided heavily on-line stuff so I can use my own schedule, and that’s the sticking point here for me. In the current environment where it’s easy to see network requirements, and even refund games after testing it seems like this could be handled by vote with your wallet for the most part. However, I take a very different view of the current bait-and-switch of taking games without a hard online requirement and changing the terms in some way after release, and this alone is enough to make me support the movement. Adding launchers, additional account requirements, micro transactions post release should be heavily controlled. If you don’t state at release you will be adding MTX - or even DLC honestly - you shouldn’t be able too in my mind. It’s a different product.

      I think the other thing that so many are either too young to remember, or perhaps not technical enough now, but in the 90s, you ran your own game servers, and it was awesome. It was hard back then, someone seemed an ISDN or leased line to handle the traffic and access to a decent PC or server - requirements that are now in reach of everyone with a joke connection, a multi core machine and a docker install. There’s no reason this couldn’t be handled that way again with the companies monetising “content packs” for the servers and letting communities flourish. But they like the control.

      It’s going to be interesting seeing the outcome here!