Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: Mountain ManThat some companies choose to do so without coercion is commendable, but it would be immoral to force them to do so.

No it wouldn't. Companies are legal constructs, not people.

Hard disagree. I strongly reject the premise that individuals can be denied fundamental rights just because they happen to be part of a company.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Kimyrielle

Quoting: Mountain Man"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.

It's absolutely not, and I am pretty sure you know that.

Removing the DRM is just yet another patch against the already released executable. Companies are actually doing it every now and then. It doesn't make the game "free", since nobody is forcing them to put up the assets for free download. People who already bought it can still continue to play it, that's all this demand is about.

Same for the server code. I am not aware that releasing stand-alone servers has made any game "free". Same reason as above. The server code alone doesn't do anything. Again, check the Steam Tools page. There are plenty examples of released server software to counter your point.

Also the question remains why they would even care about releasing the game for "free", if they are no longer planning to sell it anyway (which is the assumed scenario here). The economic damage done is exactly zero, since you can't earn money with a game you're not selling. But hey, nobody is demanding greedy corporations to be not greedy. All that's requested here is people being able to continue to use a product they PAID FOR, and tell their makers that it's not ok to disable people's games on a whim, or when they had a bad day.

As a personal note: I get the idea where our positions on this matter are irreconcilable. You're a free-market advocate. I am pro-regulation when it's warranted, and it's remarkably often, IMHO. We won't agree on this, and that's ok. But maybe we can refrain from making misleading statements like "releasing server software makes a game free", when that's clearly not true?

I don't feel I've said anything that's not true, and I can think of any number of legitimate business reasons why a company would not wish to make its intellectual property and code freely available. That some companies choose to do so without coercion is commendable, but it would be immoral to force them to do so. As always, the power rests in the hands of consumers to support those companies who do right by them, and avoid those that don't.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

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