• NekuSoul@lemmy.nekusoul.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    If a game asks for money in any kind of way: Yes. That should be the cost of (trying to do) business.
    Alternatively, a full refund for everyone involved, even Kickstarter backers, would also be acceptable.

    • ImplyingImplications
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      The cost of trying to do business? They made a product and nobody paid so now they have to give it away for free because they’re the greedy ones?

      • NekuSoul@lemmy.nekusoul.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        nobody paid

        That’s just blatantly false. People bought the founders pack were never refunded for example. Those people being entitled to the server software or a refund is anything but greedy, even if that only applies to a single person.

        • ImplyingImplications
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          So the devs give all the founders an empty map they can run around offline in and that fixes everything? The game hasn’t been killed? It’s been saved?

          • NekuSoul@lemmy.nekusoul.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            If they can play against bots, which already exist in the game, or band enough people together with access to the game to play on a server one player is able to host, then yes. That’s what I’d expect at a minimum.

            • ImplyingImplications
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              How would access be enforced to only paying customers? That would require a server which the company is shutting down

              • NekuSoul@lemmy.nekusoul.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                If they want to keep some form of DRM then that’s not my job to figure out. This wasn’t a problem back in the day when server software being distributed was the norm, so it shouldn’t be a problem now.

                Though personally I’d be in favor of abolishing online DRM entirely, but that’s another story.

                • ImplyingImplications
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  that’s not my job to figure out.

                  So you want people to follow a law without knowing how it should be followed? You signed a petition and now it’s someone else’s problem if they get in legal trouble or not? This makes the world a better place because it protects theoretical people?

                  • NekuSoul@lemmy.nekusoul.de
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    3 months ago

                    At least try to make an effort to understand what I write.

                    I said it’s their job to figure out how to do DRM -if- they want DRM. If they can’t figure out how to do that then the answer shouldn’t need to be spelled out explicitly: No DRM. Simple as that.

                    If you’d rather see games you spent money on being taken away from you based on the whims of corporations, just to make sure others who might not have payed for it also can’t play it, then I don’t know what to tell you.