Quoting: Ehvis

Quoting: Mountain Man

Quoting: EhvisA potentially interesting outcome of this could be that publishers that sell a product that depends on an external party for functioning will have to specify a minimum time that they guarantee the functioning of this product for all or part of its functions. This could apply to everything from games to a "smart" fridge. I think it would be extremely beneficial for consumers if producers are forced to think about this before they are allowed to sell anything so it could be included in the value of a product.

No company will ever promise that, and if anybody bothered to read the fine print, they would know that companies actually state the opposite, that there is no explicit or implicit guarantee of future functionality, and that product support can be discontinued at any time with or without notice.

And that's why they need to be forced. No promise of functionality for a reasonable amount of time is a clear indication of the value of a product. Having this explicit is what will make people vote with their wallets. More regular people that is. I already value everything with a 3rd party dependency at zero for a primary function at zero. (and a second party dependency if I don't trust them)

That's simply not realistic. No business ever plans for their product to fail, but it happens regularly and unpredictably, which is why no developer will ever make the sort of promise you demand. It's just not going to happen.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: EhvisA potentially interesting outcome of this could be that publishers that sell a product that depends on an external party for functioning will have to specify a minimum time that they guarantee the functioning of this product for all or part of its functions. This could apply to everything from games to a "smart" fridge. I think it would be extremely beneficial for consumers if producers are forced to think about this before they are allowed to sell anything so it could be included in the value of a product.

No company will ever promise that, and if anybody bothered to read the fine print, they would know that companies actually state the opposite, that there is no explicit or implicit guarantee of future functionality, and that product support can be discontinued at any time with or without notice.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: Mountain Man

Quoting: Kimyrielle

Quoting: Mountain ManWhat they're demanding is simply not realistic and will most likely encourage developers and publishers out of the European market, or perhaps release special "EU Exclusive" titles that are basically crippled out of the box.

As I said, the power already rests in the hands of the consumers. If you don't like that a game could be "remotely disabled" (talk about a straw man!), then don't buy it. It's as simple as that. No heavy-handed government involvement necessary.

It might not go anywhere, but not for the reason you stated. I frankly don't understand which part of "release the server software and/or remove the DRM when you're commercially done with a game" isn't 'realistic'. Of course it is, and it would cost studios near nothing to publish the required components when they stop monetizing a game.

The reason why it won't happen is more like because governments don't care enough, or don't want to interfere with the Holy Free Market, and not because it couldn't be done.

As noted, it simply may not be legally possible for a company to essentially release a game for free when it contains proprietary and copyrighted content. It's not as simple as some people would like it to be.

You keep ignoring the fact that this isn't what the initiative is about. Nobody is being told to release their games for free. Even "essentially".

They've already sold that content to their customers. The game should be left in a (reasonably) playable state for those existing customers unless there's a very good reason not to.

"Remove DRM and give us your server code" is to essentially demand that companies release their games for free after they are no longer commercially viable.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Deleted_User

and they already have 100% control over the situation: If you have any concern whatsoever that an online service for a game might be discontinued at some point in the future, then don't buy that game.

That's the opposite of control. In fact this argument applies to all sorts of fraudulent sales, since you were not forced to buy any fake products.

On the contrary, it's the very definition of control. Vote with your wallet. Nobody is forcing you to buy it.

The other misconception is that the software in question is being sold fraudulently when there is no explicit or implicit guarantee that it will continue working in perpetuity. I suppose companies could simply state plainly on the box that there is no such guarantee, and this whole thing becomes moot.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: benstor214

Quoting: Mountain ManYou can't expect the entire global software industry to suddenly go open source just because some gamers in Europe have their noses out of joint.

"You can't expect the entire global smartphone industry to suddenly go USB-C just because some customers in Europe have their noses out of joint."

Quoting: macrumors.comWhy Apple Adopted USB-C
The European Union instituted legislation mandating that electronic devices like smartphones use a "common port," which the EU established was the USB-C port.

source: https://www.macrumors.com/guide/usb-c-iphone/ [External Link]

Why are you so pro-corporations/anti-consumers?

Nevermind that USB-C was in wide use years before that initiative. It seems the EU simply codified a standard that had already been adopted by the tech industry. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Kimyrielle

Quoting: Mountain ManWhat they're demanding is simply not realistic and will most likely encourage developers and publishers out of the European market, or perhaps release special "EU Exclusive" titles that are basically crippled out of the box.

As I said, the power already rests in the hands of the consumers. If you don't like that a game could be "remotely disabled" (talk about a straw man!), then don't buy it. It's as simple as that. No heavy-handed government involvement necessary.

It might not go anywhere, but not for the reason you stated. I frankly don't understand which part of "release the server software and/or remove the DRM when you're commercially done with a game" isn't 'realistic'. Of course it is, and it would cost studios near nothing to publish the required components when they stop monetizing a game.

The reason why it won't happen is more like because governments don't care enough, or don't want to interfere with the Holy Free Market, and not because it couldn't be done.

As noted, it simply may not be legally possible for a company to essentially release a game for free when it contains proprietary and copyrighted content. It's not as simple as some people would like it to be.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: Mountain ManI am familiar with this initiative and its pipe dream goals of essentially strong arming game developers into releasing their products for free after there is no longer a viable market for them

Doesn't seem like you are familiar with it, seeing as it doesn't try to force anyone to release anything for free. At least read the three paragraph quote in the article before you build up any more straw men.

I did read the article, as well as previous articles about this initiative, and I stand by my comment. What they're demanding is simply not realistic and will most likely encourage developers and publishers out of the European market, or perhaps release special "EU Exclusive" titles that are basically crippled out of the box.

As I said, the power already rests in the hands of the consumers. If you don't like that a game could be "remotely disabled" (talk about a straw man!), then don't buy it. It's as simple as that. No heavy-handed government involvement necessary.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: Mountain ManTo be frank, if the government takes up this cause and passes legislation saying that companies must make their games available to consumers in perpetuity, then I can see a lot of developers and publishers deciding that the EU market isn't worth the trouble.

Easy to see you didn't read the initiative. Or even the article. And that you're not European. You just want to knee-jerk about regulation being bad.

Businesses will not simply give up a big chunk of their customer base just because they don't get to make up the rules as they go. They keep threatening to, but they just don't. They're not in it for the ideology after all.

You're right that I'm not European, but I am familiar with this initiative and its pipe dream goals of essentially strong arming game developers into releasing their products for free after there is no longer a viable market for them, and I can tell you right now, that's never going to happen.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: GuestCivilization V that I own worked perfectly on Linux until its maintainers downgraded it with an old patch that made the game crappy, since then it keeps crashing.

Despite the fact that I immediately reported the problem to them, nothing was done to make the game playable again, this most certainly to force us to buy the latest version of the game which was at the time Civilization VI ;-(

After having lived such an adventure, I don't think I will buy a game of this franchise again...

You could have installed the Windows version via Proton. Even Civilization VI ran like a pig on Linux from day one, and Proton was always the preferred way to play.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Deleted_User

Quoting: Mountain ManAssuming it's not proprietary or licensed. That's one part of this debate that is never considered, that developers may not legally be able to release their games for free.

I don't see why this should be the consumers problem instead of the developers. If a legislation is enacted according to the initiave, than such kind of licensing isn't the way to go (within EU) anymore, so what? THEN the market could sort out the rest.

You can't expect the entire global software industry to suddenly go open source just because some gamers in Europe have their noses out of joint. It's never going to happen. And that's not even considering the fact that a lot of developers use licensed intellectual property, music, and artwork in their games that they can't simply give away. You say it's not the consumer's problem, but it is, and they already have 100% control over the situation: If you have any concern whatsoever that an online service for a game might be discontinued at some point in the future, then don't buy that game.

To be frank, if the government takes up this cause and passes legislation saying that companies must make their games available to consumers in perpetuity, then I can see a lot of developers and publishers deciding that the EU market isn't worth the trouble.

View this comment - View article - View full comments