• The Hobbyist@lemmy.zipEnglish
    25·
    2 months ago

    And the Netherlands are 6th! But the hardest part will be reaching that Million threshold… We still have a lot of time, but the pace has certainly slowed down the last few weeks compared to the skyrocketing in the early days. I think we will need to have more awareness spread around the campaign, perhaps try to reach mainstream media in some ways…

    • Korkki@lemmy.worldEnglish
      122·
      2 months ago

      Just imagine how much worse it would have been for sony with Concord in the EU if this law were reality. Flop a game, a live service game no less and then they would have to leave it in a playable state for like a couple hundred people that ever played it in the EU. I don’t know how this law would work in this case. Would they be mandated to give out the server code that people could run their own servers?

      It’s really ambiguous how it would or how it would be revised work for games that are multiplayer only.

      • Vittelius@feddit.orgEnglish
        15·
        2 months ago

        Would they be mandated to give out the server code that people could run their own servers?

        Sort of. The Idea is that people should be able to run their own servers, but developers wouldn’t need to give out their code. All you need is the server binary. After all server software is just that software, just like the client and they don’t need to give out the source code for that for you to run the game. Alternatively they could patch the game so it’s peer-to-peer. (and yes in this case that would be unreasonable as the game is not successful enough to even break even)

        The initiative is so ambiguous (to the extend that it is - I’d argue that it’s a lot clearer than many people claim) because it’s not actually legal text. It’s not supposed to be. All it should do is describe the problem and explain why the problem falls under EU jurisdiction. Everything else is supposed to be handled by EU lawmakers after the initiative has met it’s signature goal.

      • JusticeForPorygon@lemmy.worldEnglish
        8·
        2 months ago

        I think the idea is more that if this were in place companies like Sony would be more incentivized to make sure they release games worth buying and playing, because if they didn’t then they would have the financial burden of keeping them alive.

        Side note: it doesn’t require constant support from the developers. Just update it so players can run local servers, then it would technically still be playable. Of course I’m not a game dev so I’m sure thats more complicated than I’m making it sound, so that’s again why they should focus on making games that are good to begin with.

        • osprior@lemmy.worldEnglish
          4·
          2 months ago

          I think in Sony’s case a reasonable alternative is to just refund, which is what they’re doing anyways. There’s no way a full refund would not be considered a true option, so I think the Concord side is a bit irrelevant to the primary issue of server owners shutting down servers for old games and keeping the money.

    • ImplyingImplicationsEnglish
      15·
      2 months ago

      Literally how would this change anything? Nobody played the game because it’s bad. Everyone who bought it got a refund. Why would you want a law forcing them to give people a game they don’t want?

        • ImplyingImplicationsEnglish
          22·
          2 months ago

          Can you give an example? Every time I ask for examples I get a list of games like Concord. A bunch of failed launches nobody has heard of.

          • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
            32·
            2 months ago

            Off the top of my head not really, but I just woke up

            But there’s this magic way to learn about stuff called “looking it up” you can try! I recommend the people the post is talking about, you’re obviously really poorly informed on the topic

            • ImplyingImplicationsEnglish
              17·
              2 months ago

              This is so important to you that the government must be petitioned to act but you don’t have a single example? Did you purchase Concord? Have you ever purchased a game that no longer works? Why do you think you have the right to tell the devs what they should be doing if you didn’t buy their game?

              • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
                7·
                2 months ago

                This is so important to you that the government must be petitioned to act but you don’t have a single example?

                Yup, that’s exactly what I said, nailed it!

                Did you purchase Concord?

                No, irrelevant anyway

                Have you ever purchased a game that no longer works?

                Yes. Multiple, even!

                Why do you think you have the right to tell the devs what they should be doing if you didn’t buy their game?

                Because nobody should have the ability to take a paid-for product and make it no longer work after the fact. That flat-out _shouldn’t be an options for anyone

                You should really inform yourself on this topic, it’s super clear you’ve got no idea what youre on about

      • MindTravellerEnglish
        1·
        2 months ago

        I’m sure there’s at least a dozen weirdos who like Concord. And if they find each other, and they want to play a game together, they should be able to do that. They paid for it, it’s their property. If they have the players for it, they should be allowed to host a server and play.

        • ImplyingImplicationsEnglish
          1·
          2 months ago

          They paid for it, it’s their property

          They still have what they purchased–a game client. They couldn’t host their own server when they bought the game, why should they be expected to host their own server now?

          • MindTravellerEnglish
            1·
            2 months ago

            Because that’s the only way to play the game.

            If I sell you a car that runs on special hydrogen fuel, and I sell the hydrogen fuel, and then I stop selling it, you should be allowed to find a new source of hydrogen fuel. The intellectual property rights should expire when the service is no longer sold, because that IP is necessary for the use of a product that has been sold.

            • ImplyingImplicationsEnglish
              1·
              2 months ago

              If I sell you a car that runs on special hydrogen fuel, and I sell the hydrogen fuel, and then I stop selling it, you should be allowed to find a new source of hydrogen fuel.

              Exactly. You sold me a car that runs on fuel you produced. You decide you’re no longer going to run the machines that produce the fuel. Do I get a copy of your machines so I can produce the fuel myself? No, those are your machines. I didn’t buy the machines that produce fuel, I bought a car. A car I still have.