4 ms·

OK as usual there's a ton of misunderstanding on this issue so I feel the need to summarize it: The goal is to require publishers to leave the game in a workin

OK as usual there's a ton of misunderstanding on this issue so I feel the need to summarize it: The goal is to require publishers to leave the game in a working state when they end support. For single player focused games, this means removing the phone-home verification or drm so it can function offline. For multiplayer focused games, this means allowing users to run their own server. It DOES NOT mean keeping official servers running forever. I'm sure there's going to be someone saying "NOOOOO they'll have to do more work to make sure the game is still playable!" Ok, and? You're saying they should legally be allowed to sell the game on a DVD that self-destructs after a year because it's "too much work" to sell non-destructing discs? This is why new regulations are needed, because this is a bad practice that only recently started, and it needs to be stopped before it gets worse. And also it needs to be clear this DOES NOT APPLY to games that have a monthly subscription fee like WoW, or games that are completely free to play.

nerdjon 2y ago
See this is why I made the comment I did, nothing that you just said is at all clear from the petition and as it is written it doesn't conform to what you are saying here. > For single player focused games, this means removing the phone-home verification or drm so it can function offline. I really doubt that anyone would dispute that. If we are only talking about that, its just fine. > For multiplayer focused games, this means allowing users to run their own server. It DOES NOT mean keeping official servers running forever. This is where it gets confusing, since then you say: > And also it needs to be clear this DOES NOT APPLY to games that have a monthly subscription fee like WoW, or games that are completely free to play. That should be clear from the petition but why are those 2 a distinction? You have to buy WoW, its expansions, and pay a subscription fee. Why is that inherently different from buying an online only game, that you just don't have to pay a subscription for? For example, Guild Wars 2. For any reason that mattered it is identical to WoW when it comes to the server side of things. Except it doesn't have a subscription. If we really are going to make that distinction, it should have been in the petition. I had the same problem with the website that was discussing the Crew, critical information about what exactly we were talking about was missing and actually what we were talking about only came up after discussing it here. > Because this is a bad practice that only recently started, and it needs to be stopped before it gets worse. This petition also really needs examples of this, because I struggled to find an example so so far the only ones presented as games that are unplayable because of phoning home is NFS Underground and The Crew. When the petition is making it out to be a much larger and wide spread problem than it currently is.
- anon_cow1111 2y ago
  WoW only charges the base monthly subscription fee for 90% of the game, you don't actually buy the game+old expansions. The very newest expansion costs something, which could be tricky to fit into the law criteria, but everything else is included with the monthly bill. For GW2, any new regulations would apply normally because you bought a product(the game), not a service(a subscription). So yeah, they'd have to let you host a sever when they shut official servers down. Completely free games don't apply because... they're free. You have not entered into a legal contract with the publisher because no money was exchanged. They're not obligated to keep supporting a free product. If you thought the wording on the petitions is confusing, you might want to tell the guy behind it directly. ( rosswscott at google's mail service). It was actually revised by... probably many people and some things may have been lost in repeated edits. (I can find a list of games that have been killed off. I'll have to reply to this later because I saw it linked in a video and I can't remember which one it was)
  - nerdjon 2y ago
    > WoW only charges the base monthly subscription fee for 90% of the game, you don't actually buy the game+old expansions. The very newest expansion costs something, which could be tricky to fit into the law criteria, but everything else is included with the monthly bill. > For GW2, any new regulations would apply normally because you bought a product(the game), not a service(a subscription). So yeah, they'd have to let you host a sever when they shut official servers down. That distinction doesn't really make sense. If your argument is to stop killing games, why do games like WoW get an exception? You still are loosing access to something you paid for, before you ever put in your credit card for a subscription. It's irrelevant how they bundle expansions or make some free later, if you were subscribed from the beginning you bought a lot of expansions and the base game. To be clear here, I think its fine that GW2, Wow, and any online only game could shut down and you loose access to it. As a consumer you should well understand that some things are online only, it is built to be online and if the servers shut down you should understand that. If somehow we can make an exception that WoW is fine, clearly consumers understand online only games regardless of how it was paid for. Not talking about phoning home, but an actual online game. I just don't understand how you justify the distinction of how some online games are somehow different from others. It weakens the entire argument to carve out exceptions that have no basis on the underlying technology on why something isn't realistic. > If you thought the wording on the petitions is confusing, you might want to tell the guy behind it directly. It is less that it is confusing, my point is that is conflating 2 very different things. Phoning home, and truly online games. The reason I responded to you is you started your first post seemingly from a place of authority or understanding of this: > OK as usual there's a ton of misunderstanding on this issue so I feel the need to summarize it: That implies that you know something that we don't, further enforced by you mentioning things in your original post that is nowhere to be found in this petition. If that is not the case and your original post was your own understanding of what is written but not from a place of having any additional information than that makes this conversation very different.
johnnyanmac 2y ago
>I'm sure there's going to be someone saying "NOOOOO they'll have to do more work to make sure the game is still playable!" Ok, and? You're saying they should legally be allowed to sell the game on a DVD that self-destructs after a year because it's "too much work" to sell non-destructing discs yes, that's how servers work. You don't own anything. You didn't pay for support. If you don't like that risk, don't play on games with no LAN hosting. But consumer demands have risen and clearly they stopped caring about local hosting, especially since they are spoiled by dedicated servers and their optimizations. So I don't think the scheme is going away. >And also it needs to be clear this DOES NOT APPLY to games that have a monthly subscription fee like WoW, or games that are completely free to play. oh cool. I guess we'll be getting a lot more F2P titles. These console companies should be caught up to what is standard in mobile by the time any bills pass. I think they'll try subs for a short spell, but quickly default back to f2p.

nerdjon 2y ago

See this is why I made the comment I did, nothing that you just said is at all clear from the petition and as it is written it doesn't conform to what you are saying here. > For single player focused games, this means removing the phone-home verification or drm so it can function offline. I really doubt that anyone would dispute that. If we are only talking about that, its just fine. > For multiplayer focused games, this means allowing users to run their own server. It DOES NOT mean keeping official servers running forever. This is where it gets confusing, since then you say: > And also it needs to be clear this DOES NOT APPLY to games that have a monthly subscription fee like WoW, or games that are completely free to play. That should be clear from the petition but why are those 2 a distinction? You have to buy WoW, its expansions, and pay a subscription fee. Why is that inherently different from buying an online only game, that you just don't have to pay a subscription for? For example, Guild Wars 2. For any reason that mattered it is identical to WoW when it comes to the server side of things. Except it doesn't have a subscription. If we really are going to make that distinction, it should have been in the petition. I had the same problem with the website that was discussing the Crew, critical information about what exactly we were talking about was missing and actually what we were talking about only came up after discussing it here. > Because this is a bad practice that only recently started, and it needs to be stopped before it gets worse. This petition also really needs examples of this, because I struggled to find an example so so far the only ones presented as games that are unplayable because of phoning home is NFS Underground and The Crew. When the petition is making it out to be a much larger and wide spread problem than it currently is.

anon_cow1111 2y ago
WoW only charges the base monthly subscription fee for 90% of the game, you don't actually buy the game+old expansions. The very newest expansion costs something, which could be tricky to fit into the law criteria, but everything else is included with the monthly bill. For GW2, any new regulations would apply normally because you bought a product(the game), not a service(a subscription). So yeah, they'd have to let you host a sever when they shut official servers down. Completely free games don't apply because... they're free. You have not entered into a legal contract with the publisher because no money was exchanged. They're not obligated to keep supporting a free product. If you thought the wording on the petitions is confusing, you might want to tell the guy behind it directly. ( rosswscott at google's mail service). It was actually revised by... probably many people and some things may have been lost in repeated edits. (I can find a list of games that have been killed off. I'll have to reply to this later because I saw it linked in a video and I can't remember which one it was)
- nerdjon 2y ago
  > WoW only charges the base monthly subscription fee for 90% of the game, you don't actually buy the game+old expansions. The very newest expansion costs something, which could be tricky to fit into the law criteria, but everything else is included with the monthly bill. > For GW2, any new regulations would apply normally because you bought a product(the game), not a service(a subscription). So yeah, they'd have to let you host a sever when they shut official servers down. That distinction doesn't really make sense. If your argument is to stop killing games, why do games like WoW get an exception? You still are loosing access to something you paid for, before you ever put in your credit card for a subscription. It's irrelevant how they bundle expansions or make some free later, if you were subscribed from the beginning you bought a lot of expansions and the base game. To be clear here, I think its fine that GW2, Wow, and any online only game could shut down and you loose access to it. As a consumer you should well understand that some things are online only, it is built to be online and if the servers shut down you should understand that. If somehow we can make an exception that WoW is fine, clearly consumers understand online only games regardless of how it was paid for. Not talking about phoning home, but an actual online game. I just don't understand how you justify the distinction of how some online games are somehow different from others. It weakens the entire argument to carve out exceptions that have no basis on the underlying technology on why something isn't realistic. > If you thought the wording on the petitions is confusing, you might want to tell the guy behind it directly. It is less that it is confusing, my point is that is conflating 2 very different things. Phoning home, and truly online games. The reason I responded to you is you started your first post seemingly from a place of authority or understanding of this: > OK as usual there's a ton of misunderstanding on this issue so I feel the need to summarize it: That implies that you know something that we don't, further enforced by you mentioning things in your original post that is nowhere to be found in this petition. If that is not the case and your original post was your own understanding of what is written but not from a place of having any additional information than that makes this conversation very different.

johnnyanmac 2y ago

>I'm sure there's going to be someone saying "NOOOOO they'll have to do more work to make sure the game is still playable!" Ok, and? You're saying they should legally be allowed to sell the game on a DVD that self-destructs after a year because it's "too much work" to sell non-destructing discs yes, that's how servers work. You don't own anything. You didn't pay for support. If you don't like that risk, don't play on games with no LAN hosting. But consumer demands have risen and clearly they stopped caring about local hosting, especially since they are spoiled by dedicated servers and their optimizations. So I don't think the scheme is going away. >And also it needs to be clear this DOES NOT APPLY to games that have a monthly subscription fee like WoW, or games that are completely free to play. oh cool. I guess we'll be getting a lot more F2P titles. These console companies should be caught up to what is standard in mobile by the time any bills pass. I think they'll try subs for a short spell, but quickly default back to f2p.