Video Games Europe, a trade association that represents a bunch of major game publishers, have issued a statement pushing back against Stop Killing Games.
And yet almost every single one had a “Buy” button on the purchase page, not a “licence” and I sure as shit didn’t sign a damn thing. I act like I own them, and will continue to do so. Half the EULAs contains some illegal bullshit anyway and the “also is any of this invalidates local laws, just ignore that bit” clause is relatively a lot newer than a lot of classic games which I probably do own because of this. With the greatest respect, laws are - effectively - requests when the entire population willfully ignores them.
Absolutely true. And this is where I have difficulty with this initiative. I am a heavy collector and patient gamer, I get to stuff years after release. As such I have always avoided heavily on-line stuff so I can use my own schedule, and that’s the sticking point here for me. In the current environment where it’s easy to see network requirements, and even refund games after testing it seems like this could be handled by vote with your wallet for the most part. However, I take a very different view of the current bait-and-switch of taking games without a hard online requirement and changing the terms in some way after release, and this alone is enough to make me support the movement. Adding launchers, additional account requirements, micro transactions post release should be heavily controlled. If you don’t state at release you will be adding MTX - or even DLC honestly - you shouldn’t be able too in my mind. It’s a different product.
I think the other thing that so many are either too young to remember, or perhaps not technical enough now, but in the 90s, you ran your own game servers, and it was awesome. It was hard back then, someone seemed an ISDN or leased line to handle the traffic and access to a decent PC or server - requirements that are now in reach of everyone with a joke connection, a multi core machine and a docker install. There’s no reason this couldn’t be handled that way again with the companies monetising “content packs” for the servers and letting communities flourish. But they like the control.
It’s going to be interesting seeing the outcome here!
You are buying a license. That’s the legal action you are taking. Even when you buy a physical copy, that’s not ownership of the game. You can’t duplicate and sell the copies. You can’t duplicate and give them away. Both are copyright infringement.
Sure you can sell an older physical copy second hand, because there’s no one there to stop you, which is why companies have moved to largely digital: the communications infrastructure makes it easier (like you said). But also it allowed companies to keep a tighter hold on their property.
I agree that if they wish to end support for a game, it should have a countdown timer to then be in the “public domain” so to speak.
But that’s the uphill battle I spoke of, because you’d need to rewrite a precedent that currently allows for 90+ years of copyright.
And yet almost every single one had a “Buy” button on the purchase page, not a “licence” and I sure as shit didn’t sign a damn thing. I act like I own them, and will continue to do so. Half the EULAs contains some illegal bullshit anyway and the “also is any of this invalidates local laws, just ignore that bit” clause is relatively a lot newer than a lot of classic games which I probably do own because of this. With the greatest respect, laws are - effectively - requests when the entire population willfully ignores them.
Absolutely true. And this is where I have difficulty with this initiative. I am a heavy collector and patient gamer, I get to stuff years after release. As such I have always avoided heavily on-line stuff so I can use my own schedule, and that’s the sticking point here for me. In the current environment where it’s easy to see network requirements, and even refund games after testing it seems like this could be handled by vote with your wallet for the most part. However, I take a very different view of the current bait-and-switch of taking games without a hard online requirement and changing the terms in some way after release, and this alone is enough to make me support the movement. Adding launchers, additional account requirements, micro transactions post release should be heavily controlled. If you don’t state at release you will be adding MTX - or even DLC honestly - you shouldn’t be able too in my mind. It’s a different product.
I think the other thing that so many are either too young to remember, or perhaps not technical enough now, but in the 90s, you ran your own game servers, and it was awesome. It was hard back then, someone seemed an ISDN or leased line to handle the traffic and access to a decent PC or server - requirements that are now in reach of everyone with a joke connection, a multi core machine and a docker install. There’s no reason this couldn’t be handled that way again with the companies monetising “content packs” for the servers and letting communities flourish. But they like the control.
It’s going to be interesting seeing the outcome here!
Sure you can sell an older physical copy second hand, because there’s no one there to stop you, which is why companies have moved to largely digital: the communications infrastructure makes it easier (like you said). But also it allowed companies to keep a tighter hold on their property.
I agree that if they wish to end support for a game, it should have a countdown timer to then be in the “public domain” so to speak.
But that’s the uphill battle I spoke of, because you’d need to rewrite a precedent that currently allows for 90+ years of copyright.