7 ms·
This is idiotic. "The industry" are also European citizens. It's about balancing the interests of people who pay their rent and feed their children by selling
by l23k4 4mo ago
This is idiotic. "The industry" are also European citizens.
It's about balancing the interests of people who pay their rent and feed their children by selling games, and the interests of people who merely enjoy games.
Consulting only the group which enjoys games would be absurd to the point of being actively malicious.
- roblabla 4mo agoIt's a much smaller set of European citizens, and yet they have a much larger access to lawmakers. So no, it's not idiotic.
- l23k4 4mo ago[flagged]
- LtWorf 4mo agoEverything you buy instead of something else is putting someone on the street.
- l23k4 4mo ago[flagged]
- LtWorf 4mo agoI love how you complain about the poor companies while companies are the only ones being heard. maybe take less of a moral superiority stance?
- Ukv 4mo ago> disgusting anti-democratic suggestion [...] denying them representation I assume the idea isn't that developing a game means you don't get to vote as a citizen, but that the industry can't lobby for special access ("spent virtually all of their time with the gaming industry lobby groups").
- l23k4 4mo agoWhat is that even supposed to mean in practice? Given the lack of a reasonable proposal, I think I'll take their words at face value.
- thrance 4mo agoWhat's democratic about a decision made by the wealthy few, disregarding a massive popular wave!?
- account42 4mo ago> Would you be happy to put a person on the street so a thousand people get to continue playing league of legends in 2060? Yes. The balance is that everyone's free speech has already been SEVERELY restricted in order for the game industry to have a business model at all. This is about making sure that the rest of our society actually gets a remotely fair deal. Asking that companies can't just take away what they have sold is really below the bare minimum.
- thrance 4mo agoFalse dilemma. Riot could release the server binaries when they end League of Legends service, and no one would get thrown on the street.
- orthoxerox 4mo agoDepends on how they licensed various libraries used in the server binaries. Some of them might not allow redistribution of the final product, only provision of digital services.
- thrance 4mo agoThat's a non-issue, those providers would have to relax their licenses, since releasing binaries after EOL would become expected of all.
- Krutonium 4mo agoAlternatively, as SKG suggested, Riot could post the spec needed for a server to communicate with the game, and someone could just write a server for it.
- hobofan 4mo agoAll hundred different microservices? And I'm sure you also want docs for how to run them all together too?
- drbscl 4mo ago> And FWIW: People building games contribute something to society, playing them contributes nothing. You're aware that they are taxed products that people buy with their wages, right?
- l23k4 4mo agoYes, but you'd generate the same value by simply collecting them.
- Folcon 4mo agoWait, are you arguing that activities that make people happy have little to no value? I mean, we only spend money when we believe that what we buy with it is more valuable than the money we've spent, so there is some underlying activity or follow up to spending the money that naturally follows otherwise, the buyer would perceive no benefit and would not buy again So how are you equating collection and enjoyment of your purchase as the same?
- l23k4 4mo agoSurely they must have value at an individual level, for people are willing to pay to engage in those. The time you spend playing games does very little to help the society around you, and might in fact distract you from more productive activities. Perhaps gamers would go outside instead, and reduce the burden on the healthcare system. This essentially amounts to government intervention to reduce the already incredibly cheap cost per hour of these activities for a small minority of gamers. Is that good public policy?
- skotobaza 4mo ago> Is that good public policy? Yes, because you will not be limited in time to enjoy a single title. Like it's the case with other media - books, music, movies, etc. This is good because future people (who haven't even been born yet) will be able to enjoy the same slice of entertainment that we enjoy right now. Just like we can still enjoy games made 40 years ago.
- sensanaty 4mo ago> People building games contribute something to society, playing them contributes nothing. The people building games wouldn't be contributing anything if the players weren't playing/buying them.
- xinayder 4mo ago> FWIW: People building games contribute something to society, playing them contributes nothing. if there are no players, there is no money to be made, developers will be fired. and besides, I'd rather put someone on the street if this is the multibillionaire CEO that exploits his devs, than a dev itself. And companies can, you know, slash their billionaire salaries and bonuses to comply with the law.
- l23k4 4mo agoYeah, but you don't get to choose where the money comes from and which projects get cancelled because of this last straw. These things have real costs which eventually affect many, many people who are not billionaire CEOs. It would be absurd to disregard those costs and not consult the industry on them when writing laws like this.
- monegator 4mo agoHey! That's exactly what lobbyists against regulations would say!
- walletdrainer 4mo ago[flagged]
- Der_Einzige 4mo agoThis but unironically
- infinite_spin 4mo ago> absurd to the point of being actively malicious No, it's not, and this is why you were called a shill .. not merely due to a disagreement, but due to you actively portraying your opposition as malicious, while you actively describe multi-billion dollar corporations as just people trying to "pay their rent and feed their children by selling games" Deeply dishonest indeed.
- walletdrainer 4mo ago> but due to you actively portraying your opposition as malicious It's extremely difficult to see how the statement quoted below is not fairly characterized as malicious >The industry should only be allowed to comment after the laws have been written and fulfill the goals of European citizens. If the opposition simply seeks to silence you, rather than to argue against you, how are they not malicious?
- SpaceNugget 4mo agoYou seem to be arguing under the presupposition that there are two equal entities, industry lobbies and everyone else, and somehow that division of viewpoints gets equal consideration from the governing body. The other person is arguing that those two entities are not equal and should not have equal weight in affecting the decisions of the European commission. Calling them malicious for having a different view of the _purpose_ of the commission is kind of wrong (it's independent of being malicious), and from the outside just makes you look dishonest.
- skotobaza 4mo agoBut the commission did consult with the industry much more than with the initiative, they misrepresented the initiative and no balance was achieved...
- l23k4 4mo agoAnd your solution is to exclude the industry from the process? That's what Frieren is proposing, and specifically what I am attacking.
- skotobaza 4mo agoOf course not. I'd rather the commission talked equally to both parties involved instead of preferring the one with the stronger lobbying.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]