It's astonishing to me how even right here on Lemmy so many people still misunderstand what this is about with comments saying that piracy fixes it or that downloading the game installer solves the issue.
-
You can choose to accept their terms or not play the game.
You are not entitled to have everything on your terms.
You can also choose to call them out on having anti-consumer practices. You are entitled to criticize shitty business practices.
-
People aren't used to this as a concept, especially when there are so many terms and conditions screens (that have been shown in multiple jurisdictions courts to not be legally binding) they click through on a daily basis as well as many other "as a service" models that are reliable enough that people don't realise what the pitfalls are (people playing for Netflix are fairly certain it won't close next week, for instance), even the more technically minded expect sunset clauses - which would be a pretty good legal baseline to improve the situation.
Or people are used to this concept and accept it as normal instead of unethical behavior that should be illegal.
-
You can also choose to call them out on having anti-consumer practices. You are entitled to criticize shitty business practices.
I wouldn’t call this a shitty business practice. You agreed to a game they own and control. You went into the game knowing this. If they are losing money on the game why should they lose more just to “preserve” the game after shutting down?
-
I wouldn’t call this a shitty business practice. You agreed to a game they own and control. You went into the game knowing this. If they are losing money on the game why should they lose more just to “preserve” the game after shutting down?
They don't have to. They can release the code and let people run their own servers once they're no longer interested in doing so. This costs them nothing.
-
In a way, piracy can fix that problem too, since pirate servers existing for ongoing games means they'll never actually die, unless the server source code gets taken down and nobody archives a copy. I mean, WoW Classic only happened because a private server running vanilla got too big, despite Blizzard bullshit of "You think you want it, but you don't" and "We don't have the code to roll back".
Star Wars Galaxies, Phantasy Star Online, City of Heroes, Warhammer Age of Reckoning all still exist and can be played, despite being "dead", thanks to private/pirate servers.
That only works if the server code gets leaked or someone reverse engineers it. Both of those options shouldn't be relied on, especially for more complex or less popular games.
-
I think the issue is that, as with reddit, a lot of people are only reading the headline and commenting.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Sure, but when the link is to a video, I don't blame them.
-
Or people are used to this concept and accept it as normal instead of unethical behavior that should be illegal.
That's basically like saying g all mmo's should illegal. Or that it is illegal to go out of business and close up shop without giving away all your code.
-
Sure, but when the link is to a video, I don't blame them.
Here's a link to the Stop Killing Games campaign, of which the video is about.
-
That's basically like saying g all mmo's should illegal. Or that it is illegal to go out of business and close up shop without giving away all your code.
That's pretty much exactly what I'm saying. If you offer software that requires outside servers to run, you should be legally obligated to release the code used to run the servers if you discontinue supporting that software. That doesn't make mmo's any different, just a minor change to how they handle end of life.
-
In a way, piracy can fix that problem too, since pirate servers existing for ongoing games means they'll never actually die, unless the server source code gets taken down and nobody archives a copy. I mean, WoW Classic only happened because a private server running vanilla got too big, despite Blizzard bullshit of "You think you want it, but you don't" and "We don't have the code to roll back".
Star Wars Galaxies, Phantasy Star Online, City of Heroes, Warhammer Age of Reckoning all still exist and can be played, despite being "dead", thanks to private/pirate servers.
In a way, piracy can fix that problem too, since pirate servers existing for ongoing games means they’ll never actually die
That happened to Ragnarok Online. Iirc the early server code got leaked by hackers (it seems it's still being developed on GitHub lol), so all throughout the game's 20+ years lifetime it has had a flourishing private server scene with hundreds of servers still online, so I don't think it will die in our lifetimes.
-
That does seem to be an influence, though oddly there are some modern wildly popular games, Minecraft being a prime example, that still allow you to self host your own server, so it shouldn't really be as foreign of a concept as it appears to be to some younger folk.
I'm not young and I disagree with this petition. I don't think developers are doing anything wrong or immoral, and they should be free to make the design decisions they think are best. If the consumers end up not liking their decisions, then they won't buy the companies product. I think creating a law or regulation around this is too far.
-
Yeah, but a contract that you cannot negotiate before signing isn't really a contract is it? It is a gate keeper. A gun to the head. An "agree to this or else". In the modern world, one can do essentially nothing without signing a EULA. Want to get a job without signing one? Good luck. Want to play a game? Not many of them. Want to shop online, look at art, communicate with friends and family. Many of the most integral parts of maintaining our mental health are being put behind abusive "contracts" that strip us of any rights we think we have. Community, leisure, socialization, entertainment, all of the primary avenues in the modern world have predominantly become privatized and every one of those comes at a pretty steep nonmonetary cost.
You are acting like an EULA is going to ruin your life. Restaurants have EULAs too, like requiring shirt and shoes. Its not some crazy concept that if you want to enter someone else's establishment (online game) they might have expectations on how you behave.
-
They don't have to. They can release the code and let people run their own servers once they're no longer interested in doing so. This costs them nothing.
Your last sentence is incredibly incorrect. Does exaggeration usually win you arguments where you are from?
-
You're damn right I don't like it, I especially don't like how it destroys art history, which is why I'm part of this campaign to make that practice illegal.
Its sort of like complaining your favorite pub got shut down though, isn't it?
-
That's pretty much exactly what I'm saying. If you offer software that requires outside servers to run, you should be legally obligated to release the code used to run the servers if you discontinue supporting that software. That doesn't make mmo's any different, just a minor change to how they handle end of life.
If you don't like how a company handles their end of life then don't buy from them. Trying to make it illegal is unnecessary as companies are already facing negative consequences for making poor EOL choices. I don't like forcing developers to create in a specific way, I'd rather they have freedom to choose.
-
Your last sentence is incredibly incorrect. Does exaggeration usually win you arguments where you are from?
Instead of just saying it's incorrect, say why. I can just as easily say that you're incorrect.
-
Instead of just saying it's incorrect, say why. I can just as easily say that you're incorrect.
It doesnt cost them nothing. There.
-
You are acting like an EULA is going to ruin your life. Restaurants have EULAs too, like requiring shirt and shoes. Its not some crazy concept that if you want to enter someone else's establishment (online game) they might have expectations on how you behave.
"No shirt, no shoes, no service" is a health code, not a EULA.
Also, you are conflating social contracts with actual legally binding ones. If you had to sign a contract to eat at a resteraunt which gave them the right to photograph you and record all of your conversations while you ate then use all of it for marketing without compensating you or to sell the contents of your conversations and likeness to unknown 3rd parties without informing you of who they were sold to and what the intended use was, would you still eat there.
Your comment shows an utter lack of understanding of the issues at hand and what abuses of rights are done in digital spaces.
-
It doesnt cost them nothing. There.
That is not a rebuttal. A rebuttal requires evidentiary support of your stance. For instance, as support for saying it costs them nothing, one might offer the following:
- once released, users would distribute and maintain the file servers independently of the corporation, thus costing the company nothing.
- once released, users would maintain independent game servers and pay for their upkeep, thus costing the company nothing.
- once released, the modding community would take over the maintenance and development on the code base, thus costing the company nothing.
There, 3 salient points which support the position that releasing the codebase for the game when sunsetting it costs the company nothing. I could even make points about how it is actually profitable for the company, but I want to give you your turn to rebutt me now that you have a good example of how to provide a good argument.
-
You can choose to accept their terms or not play the game.
You are not entitled to have everything on your terms.
Except... For a contract to be legal it must be agreed upon by both parties free of manipulation or coercion. Now, usually this is specified to be manipulation or coercion on the part of one of the parties, but what I argue is that in the modern era that is insufficient to encompass the growing complexity around the way society works and how it will continue moving forward.
Pulling the numbers out of my well educated ass, 40 years ago the average person would encounter EULA-like contracts a handful of times per year. Maybe for a mail order service, or a piece of software. Today we encounter them daily. The amount of information in them is intentionally made dense and overwhelming so the average person becomes numb very quickly and opts to click through on most of them without reading them. This enables all sorts of personal liberty and information abuses on the part of corporations.
40 years ago you did not have one to find a job, a lover, buy a car (still had a loan contract, but if you paid up front you had 0 contracts other than the bill of sale). You would not encounter them to work most jobs. You could go years without having to risk signing your rights over to a company and usually when you did you had negotiation power. This is not true today. You work for a company, they use Zoom, Slack, Google Workplace, a Virtual Timecard service, all of which have individual EULA that you as a private citizen, not an employer, must agree to and be bound by. Microsoft can put in their EULA that they are allowed to take a screenshot of your computer every 15 seconds and transmit it to their servers. This could be intercepted, or the servers could be hacked and have the entire database compromised and you have 0 say other than public outcry or to airgap your system, which then complains constantly that it cannot connect to the internet and becomes virtually unusable for about 80% of why you want to own it.
Being required by an employer to use software which requires that you as an individual sign a EULA is coercion. Having 0 recourse for alternatives in a marketplace which do not require signing a EULA is coercion. Having the terms which strip your rights irrevocably and transferrably buried and written in confusing ways is manipulation.
I should never have to worry that my copyright is being stripped from a piece of art I create just because I share it to a friend on some website.
