- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
The original petition failed due to two issues:
- UK government misinterpreted what the petition is about and didn’t really answered to what was being asked
- early general elections canceled all ongoing petitions at the time
This attempt has a new, reworded petition to, hopefully, make it simple and clear enough to avoid any additional problems.
There are two thresholds for UK petitions:
- 10 000 signatures: official government response
- 100 000 signatures: petition will be considered for debate in Parliament
Here is a video from Ross Scott (the main organizer of the Stop Killing Games initiative) about this update.
Interesting how condifently you are talking about the subject even though your comment makes it obvious you have no idea what the petition is about.
If a company says they’re going to disable a video game a year after I purchase it and I won’t be able to retain or repair it and I agree to those terms, can I still buy it?
No company ever sells games with the disclaimer that they might stop supporting those games at some arbitrary point in the future they sell the games with the understanding that you are purchasing a product that you will own after you give the company the required amount of money.
They are not selling you a limited term license, they are selling you a product. They should not be allowed to then change their minds after the fact without compensating the customer.
Not sure what you mean. Companies dont tell you beforehand that they are going to shut games down. They usually dont even know they will, so I dont see how your example holds up here. Maybe you could explain.
This is about companies shutting down games after some time making them unplayable, even for people who already purchased them. Its like if Samsung would remotely lock your TV making you unable to turn it on again because they stopped “supporting” it.
There is simply no way to justify it. Its a symptom of greed, they dont want you to own a product that doesnt generate them revenue anymore.
Didn’t Sonos do that with old speakers? I don’t think that it went down well.
But what if they did? Some places have already put laws requiring sellers to inform purchasers if they are selling a licence instead of ownership. If the terms were clear at the point of sale, and I agree to the terms, what’s the issue? You’re allowed to think it’s a bad deal, but why does that mean I’m not allowed to accept it?
Right. If they explained that at point of sale they would be doing that, and I was alright with it, what’s the problem? I understand you wouldn’t accept that deal. That’s fine. You wouldn’t buy that TV. I don’t see why I must be prevented from buying it too.
Sure you could require them to inform the user. It would still require a change in law. I would personally stand against it because what you propose is the bare minimum needed to maintain legal status while maximising corporate comfort and minimizing user experience. It would be a law purely made to help companies exploit users.
Companies shouldnt be allowed to take completely absurd counterproductive (in the greater sense) measures just for the 0.01$ higher profit. If companies would behave like people in maintaining a healthy relationship with the law, this wouldnt be a problem. Fact is, many companies do everything in their power to get as close to the fine line separating immoral from illegal as possible to maximize profit (also more often than not straight illegal but hard to prove).
You know about squatters rights? Its the same phenomenon, except imagine 10% of the population doing it. Im pretty sure the law would change in a heartbeat. Companies have no moral compass, no shame or sense of dignity, thats why they need especially strict and explicit laws keeping them in check.
Also, to your last point: You would not be prevented from buying it. You would simply buy it under user friendly conditions. Noone would stop you from just not playing the game after a year if thats what youre concerned about. I dont see why it would have to be shut down for that.
The goal is not to prevent you from agreeing to bad terms, it’s to prevent the companies from imposing those bad terms on people.
Would you rather buy a game that you know is going to die in a year, or the same game but that can be played for as long as you want?
Would you rather companies keep making games with a short expiration date, or games that people can keep playing if they so choose?
I would rather I get to make that choice instead of it being imposed onto me. You can make your choice. I can make mine.
Currently, they don’t even give you that choice. They’re the ones making that decision. Sure, you can buy it, but you don’t get to decide if you want to play their game longer than they want you to.
What a joke. Who would ever choose having their shit taken away after a year?
Who would buy cigarettes? Who would buy a Cybertruck? Who would buy meat? Just because you wouldn’t choose it doesn’t mean it’s a choice that must be banned.
As it stands now, it’s difficult for the consumer to make the informed choice that you can make with any of those. And the comparison is that you’d prefer cigarettes that didn’t cause cancer, because they absolutely have the ability to make cigarettes that don’t cause cancer in this metaphor, but they choose not to because they believe they stand to make more money the way things are.
Yes. Such a transaction would be legally classified as a service: You pay publisher a one-time fee for access to the right to play their game over a known period of time.
Depends on the territory. The argument is that the practice as it stands now is against current consumer laws in places like the UK. Functionally, even if they were forced to provide this disclaimer, it would still lead to the current state of things being less lucrative and would discourage the practice anyway, which I would still call some kind of a win.
deleted by creator