Even if you just looked at the screenshot it’s pretty clear that’s not what the petition is about. Could you go away and do literally one seconds worth of research, and then come back and explain why you made such a brainless comment.
Comment on Stop Killing Games Petition to UK Relaunched
ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 5 days agoIt’s not going to get the signatures because the average person does not care about this. I play a lot of games and even I don’t care. If you don’t like the game, don’t buy it. Why does there need to be regulation to stop me from buying it too?
echodot@feddit.uk 5 days ago
tomi000@lemmy.world 5 days ago
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.
ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 5 days ago
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?
tomi000@lemmy.world 5 days ago
Not sure what you mean. This is not about people being able to buy games or not. Its 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.
nogooduser@lemmy.world 5 days ago
Didn’t Sonos do that with old speakers? I don’t think that it went down well.
ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 5 days ago
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.
moody@lemmings.world 5 days ago
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?
ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 5 days ago
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.
echodot@feddit.uk 5 days ago
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.
CrackedLinuxISO@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 days ago
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.
ampersandrew@lemmy.world 5 days ago
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.