4 ms·

I’m highly ambivalent about this. On one side, I agree it is a problem, on the other, is regulation really the answer? I don’t want my taxes poured all over thi

I’m highly ambivalent about this. On one side, I agree it is a problem, on the other, is regulation really the answer? I don’t want my taxes poured all over this, but perhaps more information about the longevity risks of the game at purchase? The market incentives are not there, why not try finding those first?

rawbot 2y ago
> I don’t want my taxes poured all over this Your taxes are already poured all over things you don't care about, and things that are ridiculous expenses. There's no incentive to keep a game alive after the server costs outlive the monthly income generated. Only a handful of games have been kept alive out of pure preservation or low cost (or in some cases, because the publishers just forgot about it). Regulation might be necessary since in the last 8 years of gaming, less and less games have been able to be preserved. And we had had outrageous examples like, The Crew, where fans have been able to reverse engineer an analogue to Ubisoft's servers in less than a year. Ubisoft have no incentive, so maybe it is time they are forced to.
- lokimedes 2y ago
  I'm obviously not a lawyer, but it just seems so arbitrary a problem. Doesn't the same problem happen with all other software these days? Perhaps something more radical should come into play. In the defense industry we had this thing, that the source code was held in escrow, in the case that the company went bankrupt, or a national emergency required access. What if software of a certain nature, was required to have such a thing as a continuity plan? What I'm getting at, is if all creative souls are required to front a guarantee of eternal commitment to their creations, we will see a good deal less novelty.
- hot_gril 2y ago
  Playing an old video game is among the least necessary things I can think of.
ManlyBread 2y ago
>is regulation really the answer? What other alternatives are there when the market has clearly demonstrated that it's not going to regulate itself in favor of the customers?
- hot_gril 2y ago
  It has. Very few consumers care about this, otherwise LTS guarantees would be a way to boost sales, or publishers would build more of a reputation around that. If there were actually a regulation as proposed, it'd be "tyranny of the minority." A few people with a lot of time and passion forcing an industry to work the way they want.
  - skeaker 2y ago
    Is it that few consumers care about this, or that the products are very good and consumers want to buy them but then are upset when the product is killed? I think the latter is more likely, given that the petition in question is being spurred on by people wanting to return to games that they enjoyed but have been arbitrarily closed down. Understand that companies have a perverse incentive to kill games that are genuinely good in their own right: People may not buy a new game if they're still playing and replaying a slightly older one.
    - hot_gril 2y ago
      Of course nobody wants a game shut down, but they'll still buy online games knowing full well that they won't last forever. It's not much of a consideration.
      - skeaker 2y ago
        I'd argue that it is a consideration, but other factors still cause the purchase. Things aren't black and white in real life as they are in an economic theory. People can financially support something for a plethora of reasons: Their friends are on there, they're psychologically affected by the FOMO that the game studio has hired psychologists to maximize (this really happens), the game itself is outstandingly fun (all the more reason to not want it killed arbitrarily). It may seem counter intuitive, but giving money to something does not necessarily mean that you support every facet of it unquestioningly. I think it's totally fine to say you enjoy a game but hate that it's going to be killed, then still buy it so you can at least enjoy it before it gets killed. Doubly so in this case where the perverse incentive to kill games that game studios have doesn't depend on how well a game does. They have every incentive to kill every old game they make regardless of how well it does because they always want to sell you their new game no matter what. Not buying a game won't make it not die.
account42 2y ago
> The market incentives are not there, why not try finding those first? I agree, we should make companies actually pay for copyright protection (by ensuring the works are available after the copyright period) instead of just giving it them for free. That would fix the incentives of corportations to design games and other products to disappear.

rawbot 2y ago

> I don’t want my taxes poured all over this Your taxes are already poured all over things you don't care about, and things that are ridiculous expenses. There's no incentive to keep a game alive after the server costs outlive the monthly income generated. Only a handful of games have been kept alive out of pure preservation or low cost (or in some cases, because the publishers just forgot about it). Regulation might be necessary since in the last 8 years of gaming, less and less games have been able to be preserved. And we had had outrageous examples like, The Crew, where fans have been able to reverse engineer an analogue to Ubisoft's servers in less than a year. Ubisoft have no incentive, so maybe it is time they are forced to.

lokimedes 2y ago
I'm obviously not a lawyer, but it just seems so arbitrary a problem. Doesn't the same problem happen with all other software these days? Perhaps something more radical should come into play. In the defense industry we had this thing, that the source code was held in escrow, in the case that the company went bankrupt, or a national emergency required access. What if software of a certain nature, was required to have such a thing as a continuity plan? What I'm getting at, is if all creative souls are required to front a guarantee of eternal commitment to their creations, we will see a good deal less novelty.
hot_gril 2y ago
Playing an old video game is among the least necessary things I can think of.

ManlyBread 2y ago

>is regulation really the answer? What other alternatives are there when the market has clearly demonstrated that it's not going to regulate itself in favor of the customers?

hot_gril 2y ago
It has. Very few consumers care about this, otherwise LTS guarantees would be a way to boost sales, or publishers would build more of a reputation around that. If there were actually a regulation as proposed, it'd be "tyranny of the minority." A few people with a lot of time and passion forcing an industry to work the way they want.
- skeaker 2y ago
  Is it that few consumers care about this, or that the products are very good and consumers want to buy them but then are upset when the product is killed? I think the latter is more likely, given that the petition in question is being spurred on by people wanting to return to games that they enjoyed but have been arbitrarily closed down. Understand that companies have a perverse incentive to kill games that are genuinely good in their own right: People may not buy a new game if they're still playing and replaying a slightly older one.
  - hot_gril 2y ago
    Of course nobody wants a game shut down, but they'll still buy online games knowing full well that they won't last forever. It's not much of a consideration.
    - skeaker 2y ago
      I'd argue that it is a consideration, but other factors still cause the purchase. Things aren't black and white in real life as they are in an economic theory. People can financially support something for a plethora of reasons: Their friends are on there, they're psychologically affected by the FOMO that the game studio has hired psychologists to maximize (this really happens), the game itself is outstandingly fun (all the more reason to not want it killed arbitrarily). It may seem counter intuitive, but giving money to something does not necessarily mean that you support every facet of it unquestioningly. I think it's totally fine to say you enjoy a game but hate that it's going to be killed, then still buy it so you can at least enjoy it before it gets killed. Doubly so in this case where the perverse incentive to kill games that game studios have doesn't depend on how well a game does. They have every incentive to kill every old game they make regardless of how well it does because they always want to sell you their new game no matter what. Not buying a game won't make it not die.

account42 2y ago

> The market incentives are not there, why not try finding those first? I agree, we should make companies actually pay for copyright protection (by ensuring the works are available after the copyright period) instead of just giving it them for free. That would fix the incentives of corportations to design games and other products to disappear.