Sounds like they just put together a bunch of meaningful sounding words. I know what they want to say though: "Noooo! But mah freedumbs! NOOOO "

This is the most level headed approach to IP I've seen. If you're not willing to use the property you forfeit it. It's a common contact for licensing rights for movies that forces a studio to make a movie or lose rights. That way people can't squat on a licence to prevent others using it.

Yup, I run a Minecraft server at home, and it's great. I'd love for more games to do the same.

I basically quoted the whole thing, the last bit wasn't really relevant. And yeah, it's pretty much just BS.

that’s exactly how it works right now

Right, I'm explaining how Stop Killing Games would change things if adopted.

Public servers will either sell micro transactions themselves

That can certainly be restricted, since they're profiting off someone else's IP. Selling hosting is one thing, reselling assets in the game is another thing entirely and AFAIK would be a violation of copyright's fair use provisions.

If they're no longer profiting from a game, surely releasing access to gated content isn't an issue any more? It's not like they are losing anything. So I think unlocking cosmetics for everyone would be fine, but it's up to them. If they want to preserve the restriction, they can find a way that doesn't reauire ongoing costs, such as the ones I mentioned.

Do you have spies behind you when playing cards too?

Forza Horizon is good for that experience

Sony has to make a Spiderman movie every few years even though DVDs of the old ones are still being sold, but Ubisoft can just delete games forever and they can never be played again.

Do you mean
Buying = believing
Or
Buying = buying

Because I think the real problem here is that people actually are buying=buying and that's why they keep doing it.

Anti-murder laws are cuttailing my choice! What if I someday would like to make a choice to murder someone?

Businesses would bring back slavery if we let them.

Totally agree but the person they’re responding to implied they were some scrappy indie production. Ex33 (there are caveats/asterisks here but still) is a much better example. I think at its peak the whole team was like 40 people with hired hands.

Jesus you white knights need to calm down and let them respond for themselves.

Making games online is also additional time and money.

…that’s not white knighting. I said they gave a bad example and provided a better one. Are you sure you know what that term means?

Are you really that upset about the other conversation that you spent time scrolling through my comments to try and find the vaguest opportunity to try and use my own comment against me? Yeesh. Have a nice Monday dude.

It needs way more people, because I guess a lot of people from all over the world used VPNs to sign the petition and will get nullified.

So if you planned to do it, don't, you will hurt your goals more than you're doing an good.

They don't really need to bring it back, it's always been there, just in other countries

Yes, but that's immediately profitable, which is why so many companies do it.

I remember the "old days". That was when dialup internet was still popular and running a server usually meant it was on your 10Mb LAN. When we got DSL it was better and you could serve outside your LAN. This was also the time when games had dark red code booklets, required having a physical CD inserted or weirdly formatted floppies (sometimes a combination of these). You could get around these things and many groups of people worked hard at providing these workarounds. Today, many of these games are only playable and only still exist because of the thankless work these groups did. As it was and as it is has not changed. Many groups of people are still keeping games playable despite the "war" that corporations wage on them (and by proxy on us). Ironically, now that there is such a thing as "classic games" and people are nostalgic for what brought them joy in the past, business has leapt at this as a marketing opportunity. What makes that ironic? These business are re-selling the versions of games with the circumvention patches that the community made to make their games playable so long ago. The patches that publishers had such a big problem with and sought to eradicate. This is because the original code no longer exists and the un-patched games will not run at all on modern hardware and the copy-protections will not tolerate a virtual machine. Nothing has changed.

We can even go back as far as when people first started making books or maps that had deliberate errors so that they could track when their work was redistributed. Do the people referencing these books or maps benefit from these errors?

Why do some of us feel compelled to limit knowledge even at the cost of corrupting that knowledge for those we intend it for (and for those long after who wish to learn from historical knowledge)?

Yes!
When I read that, I immediately thought "curtailing developer choice is exactly the point."

A good book on this is: Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity by Lawrence Lessig