4 ms·

It's kind of buried in the article, so probably worth pointing out the "Stop Killing Games" campaign, which will tell you what you can do[0] depending on where

It's kind of buried in the article, so probably worth pointing out the "Stop Killing Games" campaign, which will tell you what you can do[0] depending on where you live and whether you own "The Crew": https://www.stopkillinggames.com/ https://www.stopkillinggames.com/ (Admittedly, if you live in the US and don't own "The Crew", what you can do is not much. But if you live in, say, France or Australia and own it, they have a fair bit for you to do!) [0]In terms of stopping this sort of thing legally, rather than in terms of keeping your own copy playable via cracking, etc.

Dalewyn 3y ago
[flagged]
- JTyQZSnP3cQGa8B 3y ago
  It is not fucking with video games. It is governments forcing companies to respect customers, it is literally the job of governments. The same way car makers were forced to put seatbelts in all cars.
  - flumpcakes 3y ago
    I completely agree. OP probably doesn't want governments meddling, like forcing companies to provide _clean_ drinking water. Or provide citizens with housing rights. Or stop companies dumping toxic waste... There are very few laws that protect the average person, and they should be embraced where ever possible. Who cares that a billion dollar company has to keep a few GB available to download and patch their game to remove DRM when they've themselves decided to stop supporting the game (and thus surely don't care about sales?). That's all it would take to not be complete dicks to consumers.
    - Dalewyn 3y ago
      >like forcing companies to provide _clean_ drinking water. Or provide citizens with housing rights. Or stop companies dumping toxic waste... Unlike those, vidja gaemz don't cause physical harm upon anyone. It's one thing to regulate asbestos, it's another to suggest regulating something of ultimately no consequence.
- fxtentacle 3y ago
  The way I see it, someone is going to meddle with your freedom either way. The only choice you have is if that's going to be the government (which would hopefully lean more towards your side) or private profit-driven companies (which are happy to sacrifice you for every penny).
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - MOARDONGZPLZ 3y ago
      You can. Did you? If so, it doesn’t seem like it has had any effect whatsoever. Time for new tactics. This is of course setting aside the absolutely asinine comment that France and Australia are “authoritarian governments.”
      - Dalewyn 3y ago
        [flagged]
        generic92034 3y ago
        Somehow I cannot really match "stronger consumer rights" with "authoritarian government". If anything, experience tells us that real authoritarian governments care very little for the consumer and a whole lot for big corp.
        Dalewyn 3y ago
        [flagged]
WWLink 3y ago
I'm waiting for the day that a company decides that prolonging the usability of an old game on physical media is robbing them of income they would make if you bought the new version. Eg, a game developer suing people who make patches or utilities to run old games on new hardware - or even to provide say, multiplayer support, for old hardware. Or whatever. Like, Nintendo would love to sell you the same game over and over again every 5 years. Could they consider it "theft" if I decided I wanted to keep playing my NES copy of Mario instead of buying a Nintendo Switch and the Switch version? XD
- ffsm8 3y ago
  That's unlikely to occur but you're forgetting that every platform, including Nintendo is trending towards online shops... And these can simply remove the option to download the games, making the devices effectively e-waste. So yes, they're going to make playing games on old platforms you've bought them on impossible unless they're already installed, forcing users to purchase them again. It's just a side effect of phasing out physical media that store the game in favor of digital marketplaces
- A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
  Oddly, me too. I was a gamer in 90s and some of the things that seem all too commonplace now, we warned and tried to fight against. Maybe people need to be sufficiently inconvenienced to demand a modicum of change to current non-ownership.
- caseyy 3y ago
  That's what Take-Two does with Grand Theft Auto - here is one example: https://rockstarintel.com/take-two-strikes-again-with-another-takedown-notice-for-gta-3-vice-city-reserved-engineered-projects/ https://rockstarintel.com/take-two-strikes-again-with-anothe.... Worth noting is that playing these reverse-engineered versions of the game still required the original assets which would be obtained by buying the broken games on Steam. R* Games, which is owned by Take-Two, shortly after released the remastered "Definitive Edition" versions of the games, which today sell for $59.99, as opposed to about $2 per game before ($6 in total). So effectively that's what they've been doing, but no one in the games industry or adjacent can stand up to T2's legal bullying, which goes beyond this.

Dalewyn 3y ago

[flagged]

JTyQZSnP3cQGa8B 3y ago
It is not fucking with video games. It is governments forcing companies to respect customers, it is literally the job of governments. The same way car makers were forced to put seatbelts in all cars.
- flumpcakes 3y ago
  I completely agree. OP probably doesn't want governments meddling, like forcing companies to provide _clean_ drinking water. Or provide citizens with housing rights. Or stop companies dumping toxic waste... There are very few laws that protect the average person, and they should be embraced where ever possible. Who cares that a billion dollar company has to keep a few GB available to download and patch their game to remove DRM when they've themselves decided to stop supporting the game (and thus surely don't care about sales?). That's all it would take to not be complete dicks to consumers.
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    >like forcing companies to provide _clean_ drinking water. Or provide citizens with housing rights. Or stop companies dumping toxic waste... Unlike those, vidja gaemz don't cause physical harm upon anyone. It's one thing to regulate asbestos, it's another to suggest regulating something of ultimately no consequence.
fxtentacle 3y ago
The way I see it, someone is going to meddle with your freedom either way. The only choice you have is if that's going to be the government (which would hopefully lean more towards your side) or private profit-driven companies (which are happy to sacrifice you for every penny).
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - MOARDONGZPLZ 3y ago
    You can. Did you? If so, it doesn’t seem like it has had any effect whatsoever. Time for new tactics. This is of course setting aside the absolutely asinine comment that France and Australia are “authoritarian governments.”
    - Dalewyn 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - generic92034 3y ago
        Somehow I cannot really match "stronger consumer rights" with "authoritarian government". If anything, experience tells us that real authoritarian governments care very little for the consumer and a whole lot for big corp.
        Dalewyn 3y ago
        [flagged]

WWLink 3y ago

I'm waiting for the day that a company decides that prolonging the usability of an old game on physical media is robbing them of income they would make if you bought the new version. Eg, a game developer suing people who make patches or utilities to run old games on new hardware - or even to provide say, multiplayer support, for old hardware. Or whatever. Like, Nintendo would love to sell you the same game over and over again every 5 years. Could they consider it "theft" if I decided I wanted to keep playing my NES copy of Mario instead of buying a Nintendo Switch and the Switch version? XD

ffsm8 3y ago
That's unlikely to occur but you're forgetting that every platform, including Nintendo is trending towards online shops... And these can simply remove the option to download the games, making the devices effectively e-waste. So yes, they're going to make playing games on old platforms you've bought them on impossible unless they're already installed, forcing users to purchase them again. It's just a side effect of phasing out physical media that store the game in favor of digital marketplaces
A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
Oddly, me too. I was a gamer in 90s and some of the things that seem all too commonplace now, we warned and tried to fight against. Maybe people need to be sufficiently inconvenienced to demand a modicum of change to current non-ownership.
caseyy 3y ago
That's what Take-Two does with Grand Theft Auto - here is one example: https://rockstarintel.com/take-two-strikes-again-with-another-takedown-notice-for-gta-3-vice-city-reserved-engineered-projects/ https://rockstarintel.com/take-two-strikes-again-with-anothe.... Worth noting is that playing these reverse-engineered versions of the game still required the original assets which would be obtained by buying the broken games on Steam. R* Games, which is owned by Take-Two, shortly after released the remastered "Definitive Edition" versions of the games, which today sell for $59.99, as opposed to about $2 per game before ($6 in total). So effectively that's what they've been doing, but no one in the games industry or adjacent can stand up to T2's legal bullying, which goes beyond this.