"Support for all games cannot last forever."
...
Again and again and again... Sigh... Sadly I'm sure many of the comission will just believe that shit...
But then again, the big companies are obviously scared, that's a good sign at least.
"Support for all games cannot last forever."
...
Again and again and again... Sigh... Sadly I'm sure many of the comission will just believe that shit...
But then again, the big companies are obviously scared, that's a good sign at least.
The SKG movement should become the Stop Buying Games movement if they don’t listen.
Gamers are less capable of self-control than heroin addicts. Trying to get them to stop buying games is a fools errand.
Looking at you sports and COD gamers 👀
To this day I've still failed to talk my stepdad out of buying Madden games... even when they no longer work on Windows 10 (and of course Linux) so he's having to upgrade... Sigh.
I don't get those two kinds of gamers. You're paying over $100USD every year to continue to play fundamentally the SAME game. Just that ALL your progress and cosmetics/teams are essentially wiped and you have to spend hundreds of dollars to reacquire them. And they say some games are "too grindy."
Boycotts don't work when John Gamer spends hundreds of millions on microtransactions. I could never buy another EA Sports game for the rest of my life, and all it takes is one whale to wipe out ten of me boycotting. The economy of boycotting games is completely broken at scale when whales exist, and companies know how to cater to them.
But if the whale does not have 10 other people to play with and show off their whaling, then they won't whale no more on that game.
You are the plankton accompanying the whale (wtf am I typing while shitting in the morning) even if you are not paying directly, you support the ecosystem. No other players to play with, then suddenly it's a boring game.
This is why they put micro-transactions into single player games now 😅
I get your point but look at any harbor in the Mediterranean when an event comes to town, it's full of super-yatchs. The rich will always be fine peacocking for each other, and yatch builders manage to stay in business just fine. I realize it's a bit different since there's a whole social aspect of the game, arguably the whole point is to play with others. I just don't see the bean counters having that foresight.
I'd put more weight behind IP law, where if a company chooses to shut down an online game then it gets treated like abandonware and they cannot pursue fans who run their own servers. That does put the onus on the fans at the end of the day, but I think in the long run it would make companies more willing to appeal to a wider audience if we always had an open model to fall back to.
Or "Stop Renting Games" since we only get a digital license on most platforms that can be revoked.
EDIT: I need to watch the (looong) video linked below by MagnificentSteiner as this may be wrong.
This is not true. Don't spread this false "you don't own your games" narrative.
You buy a perpetual license for a copy of the game. It's called a license because you are not buying the actual game but a copy. It's exactly the same way other software works as well as music and other media.
The whole point of SKG is that we do own our games but publishers are trying to act otherwise.
Here, Ross who started SKG explains it better.
I support skg but also I stopped buying (aaa) games a long time ago, and I can't be the only one. We're the people who have enough disposable income but simply won't support shit but beancounter managers are too stupid to realize it would be easy to get if they'd just show a little decency.
🤷
Yeah. There was a statistic about Steam a while ago showing that the percentage of recent releases by playtime was steadily declining. People have their classics, they outgrow competitive games, they don't want to upgrade their PCs as much with current prices. This was masked for a time by overall steady growth in the gaming sector, but this is slowing down.
No buy from gog and show that there is money in being consumer friendly
If I buy a physical board game, I can keep playing it as long as I still have the game in my possession. Video games should be no different.
Before the internet was widespread, that's exactly how they worked.
I mean, until their internal ram failed and you needed to do a full RPG in one sitting, but I guess that's true of board games losing pieces or breaking.
That is what archival copies and emulation exists to protect. In case your physical copy that you purchased becomes damaged and as a result is no longer usable, you still have the legal right to access the digital content you paid for. You have the legal right to make your own backup copies. You cannot distribute the copy, and are only entitled to one (at a time), and must destroy the copy if you sell or give away your physical copy. Basically the physical copy acts like a proof of purchase.
Nintendo does not know the law and asserts their own creative interpretation is correct, but the letter of the law is very clear.
A streamer wanting to catch all original Pokémon started his session with soldering new batteries into his cartridges.
Yup and games were fully formed because when you got that tape/cd that was it, the whole game. None of this "oh we will be adding blah blah"
Games (and software) are one of the few forms of media and free speech that are subject to this.
Hence why streaming, e-books, etc come in to push in convenience while removing ownership/independence.
I see it tangentially related in how it operates similar to fossil fuels/renewables. The industry wants you to keep buying. They can't control the sun, wind, etc, so you don't need to rely on them.
Same kinda thing here, they want you to rely on them and keep buying the newest thing. And if they delete your old version, welp, guess you better come get the new one (especially when they "remaster" it with 0 effort and slap it on a new digital storefront.)
I just hate the profit motive lol
EU institutions are for the lobbyist, not for the people. We already knew that.
I wrote all my EU representatives in the parliaments about the chat control topic, and NONE of them answered. They are an elite above normal citizens, they do not care about us. They are aristocrats.
The commission is famously bad for this, but the EU also has the Parliament which is much less of a problem
I'm still counting this as a very broad win.
The corruption is hilariously obvious now, they had no other choice.
They're afraid.
Them being afraid, the lying and bullshit being undeniably obvious to anyone with ~+90 IQ, and there now being actual substantial public awareness and concern, and real organizations dedicated to combatting this corruption?
Should have been that way a decade ago, but better late than never.
EDIT:
To be a bit intentionally dramatic...
If ya'll don't know, before Ross Scott became semi-famous as the Stop Killing Games guy... he has a youtube series on reviewing usually older, niche or odd games, and before that, he was probably most well known for a long running show...
Freeman's Mind. Basically he plays through Half Life and just roleplays as Gordon, his inner monologue. He got somewhat into Half Life 2, but uh, Stop Killing Games started to 'happen'.
Now, you don't think one man alone can topple an incrediblely well resourced machine of propoganda and power, with scores of thousands of loyal agents, do you?
Follow Freeman.
Does the EU have a process to report this to their parliament?
They're aware.
Isn't the Commission a famously corrupt org? Nearly all popular measures from the EU came from the Parliament, iirc
@stopkillinggames@mastodon.social should make a list of killable games so that people can be aware of which games they are buying may end up killed and useless.
The commission should be afraid of siding with the corporations mainly for what we'll do to them if they do.
top 50 comments